Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London County Council (Tramways, Trolley Vehicles, and Improvements) Bill (by Order), Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred Bill Tomorrow.

South Staffordshire Water Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Kilmarnock Gas Provisional Order Bill, Read the Third time, and passed.

NEW WRITS,

for the Borough of Cambridge, in the room of the right hon. Sir ERIC CAMPBELL GEDDES, G.C.B., G.B.E., K.C.B. (Manor of Northstead).—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

for the County of Inverness, Ross, and Cromarty (Inverness Division), in the room of the right hon. THOMAS BRASH MORISON, K.C. (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Parker.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

COUNCIL OF STATE (RESOLUTIONS).

Sir H. CRAIK: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will lay upon the Table of the House the full text of the Resolutions of which notice has been given during the current Session of the Council of State and of the Legislative Assembly of India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I have not the
materials for a complete statement, but have telegraphed to the Government of India asking for it, and will place a copy in the Library as soon as I receive it.

BRITISH OFFICERS (LINGUISTIC TESTS).

Sir J. D. REES: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the obligatory linguistic tests for British officers of the Indian Army have recently been altered; and whether the result has been to lower the standards prescribed in this regard?

Mr. MONTAGU: In view of the fact that the standard of knowledge of the vernaculars attained by junior officers of the Indian Army had been for some time recognised to be inadequate, the language regulations have recently been revised and brought generally into line with the tests prescribed by the War Office. The only obligatory test for retention in the Indian Army is now a preliminary examination in Urdu. It is probable that the Government of India will continue the system recently adopted, of marking of unseen translations with less severity, but, for the reason which I have already given, the general standard of the examination has not been lowered.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the present knowledge of young officers adequate or inadequate?

Mr. MONTAGU: It is inadequate.

PUBLIC SERVICES (PAY).

Sir J. D. REES: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the fact that revised rates of pay of Imperial Services in India hardly allow British civil and military officers to marry early in life is duly made known in quarters whence applicants appear, in order to prevent disappointment on the part of those now about to embark upon a career in India?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend suggests. The rates of pay are known: it would be difficult to dogmatise as to their general sufficiency or insufficiency for marriage.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the pay is generally considered to be insufficient at present. It was to ascertain that that I put down the question.

Mr. MONTAGU: What my hon. Friend is suggesting is that I should
argue the question in a circular to be issued to applicants for the service. That would be very difficult.

POLITICAL PRISONERS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 5 and 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India (1) whether he will give a return showing the number of political prisoners at present in prison or interned in India; in what gaols and in what category they are confined;
(2) whether his attention has been drawn to the restriction on the rights of travel inflicted upon Indians in the mandated territory of Tanganyika; "whether the removal of the ban was effected on his representations; and whether he has asked for disciplinary action against the official guilty of making these invidious distinctions?

Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answers given to him on the 22nd. Those answers appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries and supply the returns that are asked for, and, in particular, say whether it is not a fact that Sir George Lloyd, in Bombay, managed to do without the imprisonment of these particular persons?

Mr. MONTAGU: I shall be happy to make inquiries to get my hon. and gallant Friend any information which he requires.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I want to know the number of political arrests in each of the major provinces.

Mr. MONTAGU: Immediately an attempt is made to get the information, there is always a difficulty in describing exactly what are "political arrests."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows what are political arrests.

CONSTITUTION.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India what reply has been given by the Government to the request, made six months ago by the Indian Legislative Assembly, that an examination should be held into the Indian Constitution?

Mr. MONTAGU: I presume that the Noble Lord refers to the Resolution passed by the Assembly at the end of September asking the Government of India to convey to the Secretary of State the view of the Assembly "That the progress made by India on the path of responsible government warrants a reexamination and revision of the constitution at an earlier date than 1929." I propose to send a despatch in reply following generally the lines I indicated on this subject in my statement to the House on the 14th February.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that to grant the demand of the Legislative Assembly would have a very great effect on public opinion in India?

Mr. MONTAGU: I think that the Noble Lord is under a misapprehension as to the wishes of the Legislature. Under the Act, a re-examination will be necessary in 1929.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it, not the case that many in India are persuaded that the only course of safety is a firm adherence to the decision with regard to the provision of the reforms which he has already announced?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is my right hon. Friend going to grant a re-examination before 1929?

Mr. MONTAGU: It is rather too early yet to say. The year 1929 is a long way off.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming a Debate.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a resolution on this subject from the Labour party?

Sir H. CRAIK: May I have an answer to the question which I asked before the hon. Member for Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) intervened?

Mr. SPEAKER: We must not allow these questions and answers to develop-into a Debate.

AFGHANISTAN (ANGORA MISSION).

Sir J. D. REES: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any official confirmation of the report that the Ameer of Afghanistan has sent a mis-
sion to Angora saying he had urged the British to refrain from assisting the Greeks?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Estimates are still prepared under the pre-War Vote headings, whilst Appropriation Accounts are prepared under the heading of units and establishments; and if he will take steps to see that both sets of figures are prepared on the same basis?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): No, Sir. The Army Estimates are now prepared in the new form approved on the recommendation of the National Expenditure Committee of 1917, and the Accounts follow the form of the Estimates.

ENFIELD LOCK CHURCH.

Viscount WOLMER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War the reasons for which the Royal Small Arms Factory church, Enfield Lock, has been closed?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As adequate and suitable provision for religious ministrations to the small number of soldiers at Enfield could be made more economically by arranging for their attendance at an ordinary church in the neighbourhood, I did not think that the expense of keeping the factory church open, involving the payment of an officiating clergyman, salary of organist, lighting, heating, etc., was justified.

Viscount WOLMER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Bishop of Willesden has offered to defray the entire cost of running this church and to rent the premises from the Government? If he finds that to be the case, will he alter his decision?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will certainly consider any offer of that sort.

Viscount WOLMER: Am I right in understanding that the sole reason of the Government for shutting down these premises is economy?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).

Mr. J. JONES: (by Private Notice) asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that workmen who took their discharges from the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, on 25th February, have been informed by the representatives of their Departments that their gratuities on discharge shall not include their War bonus; and whether he can confirm this, in view of the statements now being made in the public Press that these men are only to be paid on the basis of their ordinary gratuity?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think there must have been some misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Silvertown sent me a Paper, but it did not bear any name or any question, and I am afraid that he must have done the same in the case of the Minister.

Mr. JONES: I sent in three copies of this question.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister, I am sure, would have been present had he received notice of the question. I myself received a document which had neither signature nor heading. There was something about a question, but no question was enclosed. It was not until the hon. Member rose a minute or two ago that I was able to send round to inquire what it was that he wished to ask, and I am afraid that the Minister must be in the same position.

Mr. JONES: I will raise the question to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

WAR OFFICE.

Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many ex-service men employed in a temporary capacity competed at the recent examinations for the clerical class; how many passed, qualified, or failed; what number of those who failed applied to appear before the Investigating Board under paragraphs 36–39 of the Lytton Committee's Third Interim Report: and how many were recommended?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The number of ex-service men employed by the War Department in a temporary
capacity and recommended, notwithstanding failure in the qualifying examination, as "specially competent," under paragraph 37 of the Lytton Report, was 295. These men were selected as the result of careful sifting of all the applications by their respective superiors in Army offices throughout the country, but I regret that I am not in a position to state the total number of applicants, or to furnish the other particulars asked for in the question.

COLONIAL OFFICE.

Major C. LOWTHER: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many ex-service men employed in a temporary capacity competed at the recent examinations for the clerical class; how many passed, qualified, or failed; what number of those who failed applied to appear before the Investigating Board, under paragraphs 36–39 of the Lytton Committee's Third Interim Report, and how many were recommended?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury, for Mr. Churchill): Nineteen ex-service men competed, of whom none passed and two qualified. Of the 17 who failed, 15 applied to appear before the Investigating Board, and nine were recommended.

HOME OFFICE.

Major C. LOWTHER: 31.
asked the Home Secretary how many ex-service men employed in a temporary capacity competed at the recent examinations for the clerical class; how many passed, qualified, or failed; what number of those who failed applied to appear before the Investigating Board under paragraphs 36–39 of the Lytton Committee's Third Interim Report; and how many were recommended?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir J. Baird): Twenty-seven ex-service men employed in the Home Office competed, and of these none were then successful; two qualified and have since been declared successful; and 25 failed to qualify. Of the latter, 22 applied to appear before the Board and six were recommended.

SCOTTISH OFFICE.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: 41.
asked the Secretary for Scotland how many ex-service men employed in a temporary
capacity competed at the recent examinations for the clerical class; how many passed, qualified, and failed; what number of those who failed applied to appear before the Investigating Board under paragraphs 36–39 of the Lytton Committee's Third Interim Report; and how many were recommended?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The number of ex-service men who are employed in a temporary capacity in Departments for which I am responsible, and who competed at the recent examinations for the clerical class, was 90. Of these, 18 passed, 8 qualified, and 64 failed. Of those who failed, 30 applied to the, head of their respective Departments to be recommended for consideration by the Investigating Board, and 19 were so recommended.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

Viscount WOLMER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give instructions that those men who made personal application for permission to join the Army during the War, but who were refused permission by the Government on the ground that their services were elsewhere required, shall for all purposes of discharge now from Government establishments be reckoned as being in the same category as ex-service men?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I am sorry that there has been some mistake about my Noble Friend's question, which I understood was to have been answered by the Treasury.

Viscount WOLMER: I will put it down to-morrow.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Sir J. BUTCHER: 77.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to a recent resolution of the York Board of Guardians which was adopted at the Central Conference of the Poor Law Guardians of England and Wales on 14th February, in which they referred to the large proportion of disabled ex-service men among the applicants for Poor Law relief, and urged the desirability of granting full disability pensions to all disabled ex-service men while unemployed, in view
of the fact that they are doubly handicapped in an overcrowded labour market by reason of the disability arising from war service; and whether he will take steps to give effect to this resolution?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. G. Barker) on the 9th February, of which I am sending him a copy, and to which I have nothing to add.

Sir J. BUTCHER: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot concede the whole of this demand, will he consider the desirability of conceding, at any rate, part of it?

Major TRYON: If my hon. and learned Friend will refer to the answer given by the Minister of Pensions, he will see that he is not prepared to accede to this demand. He will also see from the supplementary answer why, in his opinion, it is not in the interests of the ex-service men themselves.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 80.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the fact that in December last the total staff of his Department numbered 23,813, of which over 12,000 constituted non-service labour, of which number there were over 4,000 substitutable positions; and, in view of the large number of dismissals in other Departments of ex-service clerks, will he undertake that all substitutable non-service labour, as defined by the Lytton Report, shall be replaced by ex-service officers and men who served with His Majesty's forces in the War?

Major TRYON: The question of the substitution of non-service personnel in the Ministry was fully considered by the Lytton Committee, and is dealt with in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the third report of that Committee. My right hon. Friend is at present adjusting his staff in order to carry out the recommendations of that Committee by the 31st prox.

AIR MINISTRY.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many ex-service men employed in a temporary capacity competed at the recent examina-
tions for the clerical class; how many passed, qualified, or failed; what number of those who failed applied to appear before the investigating board under paragraphs 36–39 of the Lytton Committee's third Interim Report; and how many were recommended?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): The numbers required are:

309
ex-service men entered;


32
passed;


52
in addition qualified;


225
failed;


184
of those who failed applied to appear before the investigating board:


39
of these have been recommended for appointment.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 94.
asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men employed in a temporary capacity competed at the recent examinations for the clerical class; how many passed, qualified, or failed, respectively; what number of those who failed applied to appear before the investigating board under paragraphs 36–39 of the Lytton Committee's third Interim Report; and how many were recommended?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): 2,873 temporary ex-service men employed in the Ministry of Labour competed at the examinations in question. Of these 170 were successful, while a further 279 (all of whom have subsequently been declared successful) reached the qualifying standard. Of the 2,424 who failed to qualify, about 1,500 applied, either verbally or in writing, for the concession provided in the Lytton Committee's Report; 277 were recommended for special consideration; and, after careful inquiries by a Departmental Committee, 84 have been finally recommended to the Civil Service Commission for permanent appointment.

INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 95.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if it is proposed to appoint female writing assistants to a small block of work in the Inland Revenue Department, this not being in accordance with
the Reorganisation Report of the National Whitley Council; if, in view of the grave hardship to ex-service men, he will suspend appointments to this class for a period of one year, at the end of which time the matter be reconsidered; and will he employ instead those ex-service men who would otherwise be dismissed as redundant, treating the Civil Service as a whole?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): Nine writing assistants are at present employed, and have for some time been employed, mainly upon sorting duties in the statistical branch of the Board of Inland Revenue. The employment of these permanent officers upon this work is in accordance with the principles of the Reorganisation Report of the National Whitley Council, and their appointment did not, of course, entail the discharge of any ex-service men. Having regard to the nature of the duties and the qualities required for their performance, I have been unable, after very careful consideration, to approve the extended employment of ex-service men upon routine and mechanical work of this character, to which, as experience has shown, they do not readily take.

TEMPORARY CLERKS.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 99.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will indicate what attitude is being adopted by His Majesty's Government towards ex-service temporary Civil Service Clerks who in all probability will be thrown out of employment consequent on reductions in the staffs of Government offices; and whether he can give an assurance that no ex-service temporary clerk will be discharged until all positions held by non-service men and women have been filled from among competent ex-service clerks?

Mr. YOUNG: In effecting discharges of temporary personnel, preference for retention is accorded to ex-service men and women, and Departments are required to arrange, wherever possible, for the absorption of ex-service temporary personnel, for whom work is no longer available in one branch, by the discharge of temporary non-service personnel from another. When posts are not available in the same Department every effort is
made to place efficient ex-service personnel in temporary posts in other Departments. As regards the latter part of the question I would refer to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewisham on the 20th instant.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. LUCIA (ANNUAL REPORT).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any annual Report on the colony of St. Lucia, one of the Windward Islands of the British West Indies, has yet been received since that for 1915–16; and, if not, whether further steps, in addition to the reminder promised in an answer given on 6th July of last year, will be taken to ensure more prompt publication of this and other Colonial Reports?

Mr. PARKER: My right hon. Friend regrets to say that the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. He is taking special steps to secure the early publication of an up-to-date report on St. Lucia. As regards other Colonies, Governors are reminded from time to time of the necessity of prompt publication, but Colonial Administrations have several difficulties to contend with in this matter, among them being the great pressure of public business during the last two or three years.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND TAXATION, COLOMBO.

Mr. RAFFAN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has under consideration the proposals of the municipality of Colombo for the levy of local taxation on the capital value of the undeveloped land on the lines adopted in Singapore; and, if so, what action he has taken or proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. PARKER: The Governor of Ceylon recently informed my right hon. Friend of a proposal to introduce into the Legislative Council a Bill embodying the proposals of the Municipal Council of Colombo with regard to the assessment of land values for local taxation. After submitting the draft Bill for the observations of the Ministry of Health, my right hon. Friend in-
formed the Governor that he had no objection to its introduction in the Council. Pending the receipt of the Ordinance as passed by the Council, my right hon. Friend does not propose to take any action. He would be reluctant to interfere with the discretion of the Legislative Council in such a matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

MURDERS.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make any further statement as to the murders of Lieutenant Genochio, Royal Engineers, Lieutenant Meade, Royal Army Service Corps, and Quartermaster-Sergeant Cunliffe; whether, in the latter case, these soldiers were armed; whether there is any news of the murderers; and whether the Irish Provisional Government have made any communication with respect to these atrocities, or expressed any regret for them officially or sympathy with the relatives?

Mr. PARKER: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not yet in a position to make any further statement in regard to these cases except to state that all efforts to trace and apprehend the murderers have up to the present proved unavailing. The Provisional Government have conveyed to His Majesty's Government an expression of their abhorrence of these crimes and of their determination to take all possible measures for bringing the perpetrators to justice.

Viscount CURZON: When will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to state that further information has been received?

Mr. PARKER: The Noble Lord knows quite well that I am not now in possession of the information.

Viscount CURZON: On a point of Order. This question was put down a week ago on behalf of the parents and relatives of these two officers. This is the day upon which the Secretary of State for the Colonies is supposed to answer questions. Is it not rather discourteous to the House that the Secretary of State should not be in his place?

Mr. SPEAKER: We are all liable to fail at times.

Viscount CURZON: I will put the question down again for this day week.

KIDNAPPING.

Viscount CURZON: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether all the special constables and others kidnapped, captured, or in any other way illegally detained by the Irish Republican forces have now been released?

Mr. PARKER: All the special constables and other persons kidnapped by the Irish Republican Army during the recent border disturbances have now been released, with the exception of the special constables arrested in Clones Station on the 11th instant, and the question of the continued detention of these constables is being considered at the present moment.

Viscount CURZON: Have any representations been made to the Provisional Government about the illegal detention of these special constables? What is the view of the Government about it?

Mr. PARKER: My Noble Friend knows that I am not in a position to answer. I believe representations have been made with regard to this matter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that when Mr. Griffith was here he arranged to have these men returned?

CATTLE, INSPECTION.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government have, under the new system of government in Southern Ireland, any right of inspection of cattle in Southern Ireland, with a view to ascertaining the existence of cattle disease in that country; and whether, in order to protect the herds of this country from the danger and immense losses consequent on outbreaks of disease, he will, as a condition of permitting the importation of live cattle into this country, demand from the Government of Southern Ireland adequate rights of inspection of cattle in Southern Ireland?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I apologise for my absence earlier. The uncertainties of traffic must be my excuse.
The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. The inspection of cattle in Ireland is carried
out with efficiency and success by qualified inspectors of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, and I see no reason for assuming that under the new Governmental system which is being set up, there will be any relaxation of the precautions hitherto taken against all kinds of infectious disease. It is obviously in Ireland's own interests to maintain those precautions. The Board of Agriculture will of course retain the power it now possesses of prohibiting or restricting the importation into this country of cattle from Ireland as from any other of the Dominions.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is it not the case that as soon as the Provisional Government is legalised, inspectors from this country will have no jurisdiction in Southern Ireland?

Captain REDMOND: Is it not a fact that they have no jurisdiction now?

Mr. DEVLIN: And is it not a fact that there is no infection of cattle in Ireland and that any diseases in Ireland are brought over from this country?

CLONMEL POLICE BARRACKS (RAID).

Viscount CURZON: (by Private Notice) the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a raid has been made by a party of the Irish Republican Army upon the Clonmel Police Barracks; whether a considerable number of motors, rifles and a large amount of ammunition has been stolen and, if so, how much; whether this raid is to be considered as being a breach of the Truce; whether any representations have been made to the Irish Provisional Government; and whether steps are being taken by them to deal with those responsible for it and to return the stores and gear stolen?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Notice of this question has not reached me. But I can see by the way that the raid has been reported in the newspapers, that it appears to have been a serious affair. There is no doubt whatever that it is hostile, directly hostile, to the Provisional Government of Ireland. They have no need to raid for rifles, because they have only to ask the Imperial Government, and they can have rifles supplied to them—[An HON. MEMBER: "As many as they like?"] As many as are reasonable to equip the force and prevent raids
of this character. I know the Provisional Government are very anxious about the state of affairs in Tipperary. That is one of the parts of the country where the Irish Republican Army have mutinied against the general authority of the Provisional Government, and I have been in communication with them to know what steps they are taking to assert their authority in that part of Ireland.

Mr. GWYNNE: Are we to understand that this raid was made by the Irish Republican Army; we were told the other day that that Army acted on behalf of the Provisional Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Out of 26 counties in Ireland there are three or four districts, including Tipperary, part of Cork and Limerick, where the Provisional Government have been defied by the Irish Republican Army. In the case of Limerick the Provisional Government have turned the men out and put in their own men; and Tipperary will have to be treated in the same way.

Mr. GWYNNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Irish Republican Army is one body, and in some cases acts for the Provisional Government, and in other cases it acts against them? The right hon. Gentleman is now handing over arms and ammunition; how can he be assured that those handed over to one part of the Army will not be used by the other?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think there is no difficulty at all in understanding the position. The Irish Republican Army as a whole—nine-tenths of it—is obeying the orders of the Provisional Government: perhaps the other tenth—or one-twentieth —is contumacious and is adhering to the Republican section of the Dail. Steps are being taken to secure the authority of the Provisional Government over the whole.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the Conservative party one body, with some acting one way and some another?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE PENSIONS ACT, 1921.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any actuarial calculations were made as to the cost, now and here-
after, prior to its introduction, of the Police Pensions Act, 1921; and, if so, whether he will state the results of such calculations?

Sir J. BAIRD: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension as to the effect of the Police Pensions Act of last Session. The main provisions of the scheme of police pensions were laid down, not by that Act, but by the Police Act of 1890, and various amending Statutes of later date. The operation of the scheme was the subject of exhaustive actuarial investigation in 1913. The Act of last Session was an Act to consolidate previous Statutes and embody various Amendments recommended by the Desborough Committee and, though these recommendations were not submitted for actuarial investigation, there were ample data for concluding that their net effect will be in the long run to effect a considerable reduction in the cost of police pensions.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYCLES (HEAR LIGHTS).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 26.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the strong objection felt by the great majority of pedal-cyclists to any re-imposition of compulsory rear lights on ordinary pedal-bicycles, as in their opinion there has been no increase in the number of bicycle accidents which have taken place since the rear-light order lapsed; and can he give any statistics to the contrary effect?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to answer this question. The views of pedal - cyclist organisations have been fully laid before me. No definite statistics of accidents are available. Representations have, however, been received from Police Watch Committees, Coroners and others as to accidents alleged to have been occasioned by the omission on the part of pedal-cyclists to carry red rear lights.

Mr. THOMSON: In the absence of statistics, will my hon. Friend have regard to the opinion of those chiefly concerned, the pedal-cyclists, namely, that the presence of a rear light makes for scorching on the part of motorists?

Viscount CURZON: Is it not true that the Northampton Coroner, in investigating
a fatal accident recently, stated that a lady's life would have been saved if she had carried a rear light?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question may I ask—

Mr. SPEAKER: Questions of detail had better be put on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMER TIME ACT.

Mr. MURROUGH WILSON: 27.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Departmental Committee which was appointed in 1916 to inquire into the social and economic results of The Summer Time Act, 1916, suggested that a very large majority of farmers were in favour of the renewal of the Act, whereas to-day the council of the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland are resolutely opposed to such renewal; and whether he will cause a further inquiry to be instituted into the working of the scheme in the light of the fuller experience acquired?

Sir J. BAIRD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The views of the farmers' unions have been very fully placed before the Government and have been carefully considered. I do not think that any further inquiry into the working of the system is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — LUNATIC ASYLUMS (WOMEN COMMISSIONERS).

Viscount WOLMER: 30.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that there are 10 gentlemen who are Commissioners on the Board of Control and only two ladies, one of whom is an honorary member; and whether he will take steps to secure that there are sufficient lady Commissioners on the Board of Control to ensure that all female lunatics can be inspected by women instead of by men?

Mr. PARKER (for Sir A. Mond): The facts are as stated in the question except that there are at present only nine men Commissioners. My right hon. Friend does not think it would be desirable to vary the number of Commissioners in the manner suggested.

Viscount WOLMER: Will the hon. Gentleman say why he has not been invited to any of the wedding festivities to-day?

Mr. PARKER: I have been invited.

Oral Answers to Questions — MORMON PROPAGANDA.

Viscount CURZON: 32.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a campaign is being carried out by Mormons in this country to secure mainly women converts to a religion which secretly practises polygamy while officially denying it; whether one of the objects of this campaign is to induce such converts to emigrate to a foreign State; and, if so, whether these people can be deported as undesirable aliens, in the interest of the public, to secure their own safety and prevent civil disturbance?

Captain TUDOR REES: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the activities of Mormon agents in this country?

Sir J. BAIRD: The activities of the Mormon missionaries are being carefully watched. If the Noble Lord has evidence to support the suggestions made in his question, I shall be glad to have it.

Viscount CURZON: Has the hon. Gentleman investigated the so-called creed of the Mormons, entitled "Doctrine and Covenant," and, if so, has he studied clauses 48 and 49 of the creed?

Mr. SPEAKER: I would like to see that question on the Paper. The Noble Lord is going into details which ought to be included in a printed question.

Viscount CURZON: On a point of Order. I should find it difficult to put the details on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMON JURORS (EXPENSES).

Captain TUDOR-REES: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the hardships suffered by common jurors in the discharge of their duties and of the comments thereon that are constantly being made by His Majesty's judges; and whether he will introduce legislation em-
bodying the recommendations of the Mersey Departmental Committee, or at any rate that part of them that has reference to the payment of common jurors' out-of-pocket expenses?

Sir J. BAIRD: I have seen some complaints and comments on this subject. My right hon. Friend would be glad if he could give effect to the recommendation of Lord Mersey's Committee; but it is not possible, as matters stand at present, to propose legislation to impose a new charge on public funds.

Oral Answers to Questions — USK PRISON.

Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER: 35.
asked the Home Secretary the amount of saving that it is estimated the closing of Usk Prison will effect; the amount of additional cost that the conveyance of prisoners to and from Cardiff to the Monmouth Assizes and to the Usk Quarter Sessions will entail; and how it is proposed to deal with remand cases?

Sir J. BAIRD: The estimated saving is £3,420 a year, against which must be put £870 for increased cost of conveyance and separation allowances to officers, leaving a net saving of £2,550 a year. Remand cases will be sent to Cardiff or Gloucester prisons, except in cases where suitable police cells can be used. Cases for trial at Usk will be accommodated in the prison during the trial.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 39.
asked the Home Secretary whether any representations have been made to him about retaining Usk Prison (Mon.), since the recommendation to abolish the same has been made; is he aware of the great expense recently incurred in improving and bringing up to date this building, and also the provision of new accommodation for warders and other officials; is he aware of the convenience and consequent low charges of removing prisoners, etc., seeing that the quarter sessions are held in this town and the assize court near by; is he aware that the people of Cardiff are anxious to get rid of their prison; and will he give time for representation and full consideration to be given to both of these points before coming to a final decision?

Sir J. BAIRD: Representations have been received from two urban distriet
councils. In selecting prisons to be closed, consideration has to be given to the position of surrounding prisons and the Courts which commit to them, and the inconvenience which will be caused by the closing of Usk Prison is not so great as to justify any alteration in the decision. Considerable saving will be effected, as shown in my reply to the hon. Member, for the Monmouth Division. Five bungalow quarters have been provided for the staff during the present and previous financial years; but, apart from this, no exceptional expense has been incurred on this prison. No desire for the closing of Cardiff Prison has been expressed to the Home Secretary, and the Prison Commissioners are of opinion that it would, in any ease, be impossible to close it at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMUNIST PARTY (ALBERT INKPIN).

Mr. KENNEDY: 37.
asked the Home Secretary if he has considered the numerous resolutions passed by labour organisations asking for the release or mitigation of the sentence of hard labour now being served by Albert Inkpin, the secretary of the British Communist party; and whether, in view of the political nature of the charge on which Inkpin was convicted and the fact that the state of his health makes his sentence one of solitary confinement, any steps are contemplated to give effect to the resolutions referred to?

Sir J. BAIRD: The hard labour has already been remitted. Inkpin is in hospital, and it is a mistake to speak of him as in solitary confinement.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION.

Mr. J. JOHNSTONE: 40.
asked the Secretary for Scotland the number of Roman Catholic schools transferred to education authorities in Scotland under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918; the number of Episcopal schools similarly transferred; the total cost, respectively, of the school buildings and furniture of such schools as have been purchased by education authorities in Scotland; the
yearly rental being paid by education authorities in Scotland to the Roman Catholic Church and to the Episcopal Church for school buildings and furniture leased from these churches; and the total sum paid in 1921 in respect of salaries in the transferred schools in Scotland?

Mr. MUNRO: The number of Roman Catholic and Episcopal Schools transferred to education authorities in terms of Section 18 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, is 226 and 50 respectively. The further information asked for could only be obtained by calling upon the education authorities to make a special return and would, moreover, necessarily be incomplete, since negotiations as to terms of transfer are still proceeding between education authorities and the managers of a number of schools.

UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS.

Sir A. SPROT: 42.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether Scotland is getting a proportionate share of grants for unemployment schemes as compared with England; and will he publish figures illustrating the matter?

Mr. MUNRO: Most of the schemes in question are being administered not by Departments under my charge, but by Departments or Committees whose operations cover Great Britain, and I have not the information necessary to enable me to answer the question so far as the activities of these bodies are concerned. The Board of Agriculture for Scotland are administering funds for the relief of unemployment by works in agricultural districts. The sum available for this purpose represents eleven-eightieths of the corresponding funds administered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

HEATHER BURNING.

Major M. WOOD: 43.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that heather burning will generally be illegal after 10th April next; and whether the Government intend to adopt the recommendations of the Committee which reported recently on this subjects?

Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, I hope to make an announcement at an early date.

Major WOOD: How long is it until "an early date."

Mr. MUNRO: My hon. and gallant Friend can construe the phrase just as well as I can.

RELIEF.

Mr. TAYLOR: 44.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he has received any communication from parish councils in Scotland that if some assistance is not given by the Treasury the parish councils in industrial areas will be unable to continue giving relief to able-bodied destitute unemployed persons; and if he is prepared to recommend that a grant be given for this purpose?

Mr. MUNRO: I have received a copy of a letter addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Parish Councils Association requesting that grants be made. I understand that the Chancellor is arranging to see a small deputation from the association next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCHISE (WOMEN).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the definite pledges given at the last General Election that the Government would remove all existing inequalities of the law as between men and women, he will consider the desirability of passing this Session an amending Act whereby women are entitled to the vote on the same terms as men?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister on the 13th February in reply to similar questions.

Mr. THOMSON: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter, in view of the great disappointment caused in many quarters?

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

MUNITIONS, GERMANY.

Earl WINTERTON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the public disquietude caused by the allegations of the existence of secret military stores and training of personnel in Germany, he will publish as a White Paper the Reports of
the British section of the Allied Control Commission that have been made from time to time?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have been asked to answer this question. The chief of the British Delegation is in close and constant touch with the War Office on this matter, and it would not be to the public interest to publish this confidential correspondence. The Reports of the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control, of which the British section forms a part, are similarly confidential. They are rendered to the Allied Military Committee at Versailles, who are responsible for initiating any necessary action.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Mr. WISE: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Germany is to have a forced loan; and if the Reparation Committee can insist on part of this loan being in foreign currency, so that those people in Germany who have placed their securities abroad would have to sell or hand them over against the forced loan?

Mr. YOUNG: I understand that proposals for a forced loan have been considered by the German Government, but, so far as I am aware, no decision upon the matter has been reached. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

BUSINESS COMMITTEE'S REPORTS.

Captain TUDOR-REES: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to set up the Departmental Committees to make minute and detailed investigation of expenditure in certain Departments, recommended by the Geddes Report?

Mr. YOUNG: I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the announcement which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to make to-morrow.

Mr. J. LAMBERT: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he will permit the discussion on the Geddes Report to be taken on a substantive Motion instead of on the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that the most convenient course will be to
take to-morrow's discussion, which must necessarily be of a general character, on the Motion for Adjournment, as proposed by me last week.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will not that be somewhat unsatisfactory, since we shall have no opportunity of expressing our approval or disapproval of the Report as a whole?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not quite see that a Motion for the approval or disapproval of the Report as a whole would be a useful discussion. I think it would be a much more effective discussion when we come to examine and deal with the Estimates for the various Services.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

SIR REGINALD WINGATE.

Sir H. CRAIK: 50.
asked the Prime Minister on what grounds the Government in 1919 rejected the advice of Sir Reginald Wingate, which Lord Milner's Commission now declare to be fully justified by the sequel, while regretting that Sir Reginald Wingate did not urge his views with greater insistency; and whether, in view of this opinion, the Government will publish the correspondence?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The advice given by Sir R. Wingate in November, 1918, to which reference is made in the Report of Lord Milner's Mission, was that two Egyptian Ministers should come to London in order to discuss the future of their country. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and other leading Members of His Majesty's Government were at that time about to proceed to the Peace Conference in Paris, and it was therefore necessary to postpone the proposed visit. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the right hon. Member to the answer returned by the Leader of the House to the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds on the 22nd February.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that the advice given by Sir Reginald Wingate extended much further than the hon. Gentleman has indicated? Has he any objection to letting us see that advice which Lord Milner's Commission pronounced to be well grounded, but which they thought Sir Reginald Wingate should have urged with greater insistence?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think at this stage of affairs in Egypt it would be desirable to publish the correspondence.

Sir H. CRAIK: How can this House judge the matter if the Foreign Office is not frank enough to lay the papers before us?

Earl WINTERTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the opinion of a great many people outside this House, a most distinguished officer has been put under an undeserved slur by the action of the Government, and will he approach his chief with a view to the whole question being re-opened and the whole correspondence being published?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am quite sure that no injustice has been done to this very distinguished officer. Regarding the publication of the correspondence, I have nothing to add to the answers already given.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not a fact that officials, and those who have knowledge of the circumstances, argue very strongly that the greatest injustice has been done to this officer who has been deprived of his office?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot accept the language of my right hon. Friend.

Earl WINTERTON: In order that the hon. Gentleman may be prepared with his answer, I desire to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the adjournment of the House at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLOTMENT HOLDERS (LEGISLATION).

Mr. G. BARNES: 53.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he can now name a date for the introduction of the Bill relating to allotment holders; if it will condition provisions for the compulsory acquisition of unused land by local authorities; and if there will be a separate Bill for Scotland?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No date has yet been fixed for the introduction of this Bill. Pending its introduction, I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement in regard to it. The question of similar legislation for Scotland is under consideration.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the growth of the allotment movement was one of the most important material and moral consequences of the War?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for copy-book maxims.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an English Bill would be unworkable in Scotland?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say more than that the question is still under consideration, and that sometimes Scotland is dealt with by special Clauses in a Bill common to both countries, and sometimes it requires a Bill to itself. I do not know what will be required in this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FINANCE).

Mr. SUGDEN: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the necessity of issuing instructions to municipal and local governing councils that, whilst paying interest on local loans, if capital assets are properly and efficiently in over-proportion to liabilities and show a large surplus, such municipal and local governing councils be allowed to adjust to longer periods the payments to sinking funds, thus relieving heavy and sometimes oppressive local rates?

Mr. PARKER (for Sir Alfred Mond): The payments to the Sinking Funds are determined by the Statute or other authority for the raising of the loan, and cannot be varied by the issue of instructions as suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOANS (DOMINIONS AND ALLIES).

Mr. G. DOYLE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister what is the total War debt owing to this country by France, Italy, Russia, Roumania, the Balkan States, and the Dominions; if the interest on such debts is regularly paid; and what is the total sum already paid in interest and capital?

Mr. YOUNG: In reply to the first part of the question, the total amount of War loans to Dominions and Allies and relief
loans outstanding at 31st March last was £1,963,353,492 15s. 9d. The hon. Member will find a detailed statement showing how this amount is made up on page 93 of the Finance Accounts, 1920–21 (House of Commons Paper 146). The interest on these loans is being regularly paid in the case of loans to the Dominions, Relief Bonds (with certain minor exceptions), the Belgian Reconstruction Loan of £9,000,000, the loan to the Belgian Congo, and certain special loans to Greece and Portugal and the loan of £2,000,000 to Czecho-Slovakia. In the case of other War loans to the Allies, as a general rule no interest is being paid, the amount due in respect of interest being added to the capital of the debt outstanding. In certain cases, however, sums due by this country are set off against the amount due in respect of interest or capital on loans made by this country. In the case of the loans to Russia (since the Bolshevik revolution, owing to the absence of any representative of the Russian Government authorised to sign additional Treasury Bills), Serbia, Montenegro and Armenia, the amount due in respect of interest has not, up to the present, been added to the amount of the capital shown as outstanding. In reply to the third part of the question, the total amount paid up to the 31st March last in interest and repayment of capital is £65,318,905. For details of such repayments I would refer the hon. Member to the Annual Finance Accounts.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUM (CUSTOMS DUTY).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the rates of Customs duty on rum in the financial years 1913, 1919, 1920 and 1921, respectively; and what was the revenue derived from this source in each of those years?

Mr. YOUNG: As the answer is in tabular form, I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The rates of Customs duties on rum in the financial years ended 31st March, 1913, 1919, 1920, and 1921, respectively, were as follow: —

Description.
Year ended 31st March.
Rates of Duty.


Full.
Preferential.


Imported in cask.
Imported in bottle.
Imported in cask.
Imported in bottle.





The proof gallon.
The proof gallon.
The proof gallon.
The proof gallon.





£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Rum
1913

0
15
1
0
16
1
—
—


Rum (if warehoused 3 years or more*).
1919
1 Apr., 1918 to 22 Apr., 1918.
0
15
1
0
16
1
—
—


23 Apr., 1918 to 31 Mar., 1919.
1
10
4
1
11
4
—
—


1920
1 Apr., 1919 to 30 Apr., 1919.
1
10
4
1
11
4
—
—


1 May to 31 Aug.
2
10
4
2
11
4
—
—


1 Sept. to 31 Mar., 1920.
2
12
10
2
13
10
2
10
4
2
11
4


1921
1 Apr., 1920 to 19 Apr., 1920.
2
12
10
2
13
10
2
10
4
2
11
4


20 Apr., to 31 Mar., 1921.
3
15
4
3
16
4
3
12
10
3
13
10


Imitation Rum, if warehoused 3 years or more.
—
The above rates are increased by one penny the proof gallon.


* Since 18th May, 1915, an additional Customs duty of 1s. per proof gallon has been chargeable where the Rum has been warehoused for a period of two years and less than three years; and 1s. 6d. per proof gallon where it has not been warehoused, or has been warehoused for a period of loss than two years.




The net Revenue derived from the Customs duties on rum in the years referred to was as follows:—


—
Rum.
Imitation Rum.
Total.





£
£
£


Year ended 31st March, 1913
…
…
2,381,298
6,823
2,388,121


Year ended 31st March, 1919
…
…
2,971,147
3,199
2,974,346


Year ended 31st March, 1920
…
…
9,181,584
6,717
9,188,301


Year ended 31st March, 1921
…
…
9,961,927
3,116
9,965,043

Oral Answers to Questions — ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. SUGDEN: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconsider the period at present required for notice to be given by societies and Sunday schools for exemption from Entertainments Duty, the present period causing inconvenience and loss to both societies and Sunday schools; and will he accept the decision of local unpaid commissioners as to which are charitable socials, etc., entertainments and exempt from tax?

Mr. YOUNG: As regards the first part of the question, I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the statutory rule that claims for exemption from Entertainments Duty shall be made not less than 14 days before the date of the entertainment. It is in the interests of the public as well as the revenue authorities to have the question of liability settled before the entertainment takes place, and experience shows that a fortnight is by no means an excessive period to require for the proper
investigation of claims. As regards the second part, the responsibility for dealing with claims for exemption from Entertainments Duty is by Statute vested in the Commissioners of Customs and Excise who determine them in accordance with the provision of the law, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is therefore unable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. SUGDEN: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would appoint an unpaid committee to consider the representations of Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Nonconformist churches upon the working of the Entertainments Duty over all parts of the country in respect of these sections of the Christian Church?

Mr. YOUNG: I shall be glad to consider any representations that may be made to me, but I do not think that a committee would serve any useful purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (ANNUAL REPORT).

Mr. RAFFAN: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be able to lay upon the Table the Annual Report of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for the year ended 31st March, 1921; and when the White Paper, Taxes and Imports, for the year ended 31st March, 1921, is likely to be published?

Mr. YOUNG: The Customs and Excise Report will probably be ready for issue in April. The Taxes and Imports Return was only ordered by the House on the 15th instant. It will be issued as soon as, possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENSUS PAPERS (ADVERTISEMENT CONTRACT).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the name of the agent who undertook to pay £9,900 for the advertisement on the census papers; whether this money has now been paid; whether the agent in question was one of the recognised advertising agents; if not, what inquiries as to his financial standing were made before he was given this large credit; and, if the money has not been paid, what steps he is taking to recover it?

Mr. YOUNG: The advertisement contract in question was awarded to the Houston Advertising Agency. This firm was a recognised advertising agency, and the fourth part of the question does not therefore arise. The sum due under the contract has not yet been paid, and proceedings have been instituted by the Treasury solicitor with a view to its recovery.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (LOANS).

Mr. WISE: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value of the security against the £2,000,000 Austrian loan?

Mr. YOUNG: From the nature of the case, it is impossible to name any exact figure as the value of such an unique work of art as the Gobelin tapestries in question, but it is estimated to be very considerably in excess of the amount of the loan.

Sir J. D. REES: Is not another foreign loan secured upon the same Gobelin tapestries?

Mr. J. JONES: What about the Bottomley tapestries?

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been advanced to Austria by this country since the Armistice?

Mr. YOUNG: The loans made to Austria by this country since the Armistice amount to a total of approximately £12,000,000.

Mr. WISE: What is the security against that loan?

Mr. YOUNG: I am afraid I should require notice to be able to give figures as to the security.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the salaries of Mr. Young and his staff in Austria are paid out of the loan to Austria or out of the British Exchequer?

Mr. YOUNG: By Mr. Young's desire, he is receiving no salary for his services in connection with the loan to Austria. No staff will be attached to him.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how I much of the £10,000,000 loan to Austria
has already been paid; the dates on which the various instalments were paid; and if any interest has yet been received by this country?

Mr. YOUNG: The sum of £10,000,000 was voted for relief of Austria and Poland in 1920–21, and the estimated balance undrawn at the end of that financial year, namely, £4,000,000, was revoted this year. Payments have been made from the Vote at various dates in 1920–21 and 1921–22 to cover relief supplies, of which details are given up to 31st August last in the first Report of the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies (Command Paper 1544, page 84).
The recent loan to Austria was made out of the balance available after the completion of these relief supplies.
In pursuance of the proposals for the postponement of Austria's obligations in respect of Separation and Belief Bonds which were communicated to the House by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 17th March last, no interest has been received on the Belief Bond covering these relief supplies. Interest will, however, be payable on the recent £2,000,000 loan.

Colonel L. WARD: In view of the fact that interest is not being received, would it not be more, accurate for the Treasury officials to refer to that dole as a gift rather than as a loan?

Sir J. D. REES: Will my hon. Friend consider the propriety of issuing a White Paper, or of making some general statement, as regards our dealings with Austria, as to which the House seems to be very much in the dark?

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: For what length of time is the loan, and when will the first instalment be paid back?

Mr. YOUNG: I shall have to ask for notice as to the details of this last loan of £2,000,000. I could not mention the dates out of my own head, or at least I could not do so with accuracy. As regards the question of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), I think he will find that in this and similar answers—I am afraid of undue length—which I have given to questions on this subject lately, all essential information is already conveyed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we not getting the securities that were prevised
in the arrangements drawn up by Sir William Goode, namely, the Customs and the monopolies?

Mr. YOUNG: There, again, I am afraid, if the hon. and gallant Member is referring to some specific arrangement of a byegone day, I should certainly require notice in order to see how that relates to the present arrangement.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUSSIA (DEBT TO GBEAT BRITAIN).

Colonel L. WARD: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the extent of Russia's indebtedness to this country, and if any interest on the money has ever been paid?

Mr. YOUNG: As stated in the Finance Accounts for 1920–21, the indebtedness of Russia to this country as on 31st March last was £561,402,000. This, however, excludes interest due since 31st December, 1918, which has not been added to the capital debt, because since that date there has been no authorised representative of the Russian Government, and it has been necessary to leave the amount due for interest in abeyance.

Colonel WARD: As there appears to be no probability of this money ever being recovered—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—at any rate for a long time to come—will the Government consult this House before they throw more of the taxpayers' money into the same bottomless pit?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES (INCOME TAX).

Major HILLS: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the grounds on which the Inland Revenue have decided that allowances to children of soldiers killed in the War are subject to Income Tax?

Mr. YOUNG: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply, a copy of which I am sending him, given on 20th October last to the hon. and gallant Member for Moss-Side (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst).

Major HILLS: On what ground was it decided that these allowances which are paid to children of soldiers killed in the
War should be subject to Income Tax when allowances paid to Members of Parliament are not so subject?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question is similar to the one on the Paper.

TUBERCULOSIS CASES.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 78.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the serious position of ex-service men suffering from tuberculosis owing to war service, and to the fact that a very large proportion of these men who have died of tuberculosis between January, 1915, and December, 1921, have died under 40 years of age; and whether, when the men so suffering have, after a definite period of observation by the Ministry, been diagnosed as suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, he will award them permanent pensions of not less than 70 per cent, or 80 per cent, disability?

Major TRYON: The provisions already made for this type of case are not only adequate, but indeed exceptional, and my right hon. Friend is not, therefore, prepared to adopt the suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend. Generally speaking, in every active case of tuberculosis the man receives the equivalent of pension at the maximum rate; and where a pensioner has satisfactorily completed a prescribed course of treatment and training, pension at the 100 per cent, rate is granted for six months, followed by at least 50 per cent. for the next two years.

KING'S OWN SCOTTISH BORDERERS (PRIVATE J. HOGG).

Mr. KENNEDY: 81.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Private James Hogg, No. 40,811, 7/8 King's Own Scottish Borderers, residing at 11, Old Abden, Kinghorn, has been a patient in Glenlomond sanatorium, Kinross, suffering from phthisis; that he has been refused any pension or allowance; that he was severely wounded in the chest and abdomen in 1915; that Dr. Deverell had certified that the man was suffering from bronchial catarrh in January, 1918; and that the condition then present was phthisis in the early stage, which was subsequently developed; and whether, in view of the conflict of medical opinion as to the connection of the man's present
condition with his military service, any provision can be made to meet the urgent personal and domestic necessities of this ex-service man?

Major TRYON: This man was transferred to Class W in October, 1918, and was discharged from the Army in February, 1919. He first claimed pension in August, 1919, in respect of wounds, but as the medical board by whom he was examined found no disability, no award could be made. He subsequently preferred a further claim to pension in May, 1921, in respect of pains in the chest, and on examination by a medical board it was found that he was then suffering from tuberculosis, which, however, the Ministry were unable to accept as being connected with his War service. That decision was confirmed on appeal by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, who had before them all the relevant medical evidence, including that referred to in the question, and I regret, therefore, that I am not in a position to comply with the suggestion in the last part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (BRITISH SUBSIDIES).

Mr. LAMBERT: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what potentates contiguous to Iraq are subsidies paid by the British Exchequer; and what is the amount to each?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The only potentate contiguous to Iraq who is in receipt of a subsidy from the British Exchequer is Ibn Saud, Sultan of Nejd, regarding whom an answer was given to the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Malone) on 14th February.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I have the amount of the subsidy paid to this Gentleman?

Viscount CURZON: Before that question is answered, may I ask whether that subsidy is actually paid in gold?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The subsidy is paid in gold. I am not quite sure at the moment as to the exact figure, but I think it is £60,000 a year to the Sultan of Nejd, and if my right hon. Friend will read the section of the Geddes Report dealing with this matter, he will see that the matter is treated there.

Mr. LAMBERT: The Geddes Committee's Report says that £150,000 a year is paid to some of these potentates and rulers. How is it that there is such a discrepancy between this £60,000 a year to this Sultan somebody or other, and the Geddes Report?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have to answer the question which my right hon. Friend puts on the Paper; it would be improper for me to do anything else. He asks me "to what potentates contiguous to Iraq are subsidies paid?" There are other potentates who, although they live in Asia, are separated from Iraq by considerable stretches of intervening desert, and I have not included subsidies that they may receive.

Mr. LAMBERT: Once before I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question as to what rulers or potentates in Iraq were receiving subsidies. Why is he continually trifling with the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman puts the word "contiguous" in his question, he must be satisfied with "contiguous" in the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 72.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his telephone Department declines to give detailed particulars to their customers of its charges for the transmission of telegrams and cables, as well as for telephone calls, as rendered in their quarterly accounts, except in the case of three days in each quarter; and, if so, will he favourably reconsider the desirability of giving full information in the case of telegrams and cables, even if he cannot do so at present in the case of telephone calls?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): To supply particulars of telephone trunk calls and telegrams transmitted by telephone would give rise to heavy additional office expenses, which would have to be distributed among the whole of the subscribers, including those who make little or no use of these facilities. Those who desire more detail than is provided in the ordinary quarterly account, can have it on payment of a fee
proportionate to the clerical work involved, and this, I think, is an equitable arrangement. With regard to local calls, irrespective of cost, the drag on the operating which would be caused by any attempt to record the destination of every local call, makes such a system impracticable.

Mr. THOMSON: Why does the right hon. Gentleman differentiate between cables and ordinary telephone calls? Is he aware that this is contrary to every ordinary business in running trade accounts?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I do not think that a parallel exists, but I will certainly consider the point.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is not registering the local calls the only way of checking the Post Office returns, which are often inaccurate?

Mr. KELLAWAY: If attempts were made to check every local call and keep a record of it, it would make the system impossibly expensive. Our system has been copied by every telephone administration in the world.

WOMEN (DISCHARGES).

Mr. MILLS: 73.
asked the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a demobilisation committee has been set up in the Ministry of Pensions with a view to alleviating the amount of hardship involved in the discharge of women staff, and that this committee, which is composed of the woman establishment officer and three women representing the staff organisations, in spite of the fact that the head-quarter's staff is employed in various branches in a similar manner to that of the Post Office, has enabled demobilisation to proceed more smoothly and with less suffering than in any other Department: and whether he will look into the possibilities of forming a similar committee for the Post Office head-quarter's women, and grant extensions to hardship cases now under notice in order that they may be retained, in the spirit of the Lytton Report, in place of better placed employés?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am making inquiries, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

PRINTED MATTER.

Mr. HURD: 75.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has been advised by the South-Western Alliance of Master Printers that a good deal of the unemployment and short time in the printing trade is due to high postal rates, and that many printing orders are going abroad; and whether, in view of the general condemnation of these high rates as being unsound in principle and a grave impediment to industrial restoration, he will now announce their withdrawal?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have, received representations of the kind referred to in the first part of the question, but, as I pointed out in reply to the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley), it is not the fact that the cost of postage is the only or principal cause. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Leader of the House on 16th February in reply to the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher).

Mr. HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the 16th February is some little time ago, and would it not be possible to give some date when this irritating impost will be removed?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I cannot go beyond the answer given by the Leader of the House, but I can assure the hon. Member that the Government is fully alive to the necessity of coming to a decision as quickly as possible.

Mr. STURROCK: Having regard to the very serious effect on employment in the printing trade, will the right hon. Gentleman use such influence as he has with his colleagues to get the postal charges reduced?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have had a great number of representations to the effect stated by my hon. Friend, but it is only fair to point out that, while the cost of postage has increased 100 per cent., the cost of printing has increased 150 per cent.

Mr. LYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that you can post 10,000 large catalogues for £1 in Austria to-day, and that it is being done?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes, Sir. That is due to the fact that Austrian currency is depreciated. What I said was that the increased cost of postage was not the only or principal cause.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL WIRELESS STATIONS.

Mr. HURD: 76.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he received an undertaking from a private enterprise to complete with 18 months the principal stations of the Imperial wireless chain which, under his direction, has already been 2½ years under construction, and are still unavailable for service; and whether the Technical Committee has advised the erection of new stations on a totally different system, both at Leafield and Cairo?

Mr. KELLAWAY: An offer was received in February, 1920, from the Marconi Company to provide the Imperial wireless stations on certain specific terms, but the Government decided, after full consideration, and on the Report of the Imperial Wireless Telegraphy Committee, not to accept the scheme. Under the company's proposal, the principal stations were to be erected within three years, and not 18 months. The Wireless Telegraphy Commission have recommended that the additional stations in England and Egypt, and those to be erected in South Africa, Australia, and India should be equipped with thermionic valves, but that the remaining stations in East Africa, Singapore, and Hong Kong should be equipped, in the first instance, with the are system of transmission, similar to that installed at Leafield and Cairo.

Mr. HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman himself quite satisfied with the present position of the Empire wireless chain?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am not quite satisfied with anything in this imperfect world.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 82.
asked the Minister of Agriculture on what date the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease on Woodside farm, Biggins, near Kirkby Lonsdale, was reported; and what action has since been taken by the officials of his Department?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The existence of foot and-mouth disease on the premises in question was reported to the Ministry on the 20th instant. Slaughter was authorised on the 21st instant. In consequence of some delay in the delivery of the telegraphic instructions slaughter was not commenced until 1 p.m. on the 22nd instant. All the animals concerned were disposed of by 3 p.m. on the 24th.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

GERMAN MOUTH ORGANS.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 90.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the sale in London of mouth organs of German origin, enclosed in a box marked Moëwenspuk, and embellished with a portrait of the commander of the raider "Moëwe," the German ensign, and ships being sunk without trace at sea; and whether he is able or willing to take the necessary steps to prevent the further importation of this and similar specimens of offensive German propaganda?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have no information regarding the articles in question. But from the description given in my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I doubt whether there is any power to prevent the importation of these articles. If, however, my hon. and gallant Friend will send me one of these articles and the box in which it is sold, I will have the matter looked into.

ZINC CONCENTRATES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 91.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government made grants of money or advances or loans towards the cost of the erection of a factory at Avonmouth for converting zinc concentrates into spelter and similar purposes; how much money was found by the Government; what were the circumstances; whether the factory is now operating; how much of the money advanced or paid has the Government recovered; and what has become of the remainder?

Mr. YOUNG: Under an agreement of May,1917,anadvanceof £500,000 was
made to the National Smelting Company, Limited, towards the cost of erecting such a factory, to be worked in conjunction with an adjoining Government factory, for roasting concentrates and for manufacturing sulphuric acid. The company's factory is not now operating, and no recovery has so far been found possible. The advance is secured by debentures under a trust deed, and the agreement provides for repayment being made from a sinking fund created out of a proportion of the profits in each year which would otherwise be available for distribution or dividends.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What chance is there of getting any of this £500,000 back, and what, in the opinion of the Treasury, are these debentures worth?

Mr. YOUNG: I should not like to make a prophecy on a business matter of that sort. The matter is at present under consideration, and as negotiations affecting the question are proceeding I think it would be unwise to make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Mr. WISE: 96.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many conscientious objectors are now employed in the Government service; and if the number has been reduced?

Mr. YOUNG: About 230 conscientious objectors are employed in the Civil Service. This number has not recently been materially reduced. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a Select Committee has been set up to inquire generally into this question.

CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 100.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether successful candidates in the Civil Service examinations were allowed any and, if so, what choice, according to place in examination, of the Department or branch to which they would prefer to be attached?

Mr. YOUNG: Yes, Sir. In accordance with the normal practice candidates were invited to name six Departments in order of preference, and according to place in the examination every effort was made to
allot them to Departments of their choice, subject to vacancies and to the exigencies of the public service.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that apply to the junior ranks of the Service as well as the senior ranks—to the Second Division as well as the First?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT, 1920 (ORDERS IN COUNCIL).

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise to ask the Leader of the House a question, which I will follow up, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, by a question to yourself with reference to an incident which occurred last night. Yesterday an Order in Council was submitted for the approval of Parliament, and after a discussion lasting one hour and ten minutes, a Count was moved, and the House was counted out. I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government regard this incident as a confirmation by the House of the Order in Council, and will the right hon. Gentleman give the House a further opportunity of deciding the question, if needs be, by a Division?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Confirmation by the House in this case is not required, and the Order in Council stands unless the House presents an Address to His Majesty requesting His Majesty to annul the Order. As no such Address has been presented, I understand that we have no power to interfere, and the Order comes into force.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Then I put this as a point of Order for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask whether the Government is not bound to provide a House, to give an opportunity for coming to a definite decision upon an Order in Council, and whether by taking away such opportunity from the House the control of the House over Orders in Council is not reduced to a nullity?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I submit that it has never been the practice for the
Government to keep a House for the discussion of Motions of this kind. It has always been considered that it the duty of those who wish to challenge an Order to make a House, and keep the House for their challenge.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is it not a fact that, under certain Acts of Parliament, powers are given to this House to annul, cancel or alter an Order in Council? The Government have agreed to those powers in Acts of Parliament, and having done that, is it not their duty to see that those Acts of Parliament are carried out, and that they should keep a House for that purpose?

Major-General SEELY: Am I right in believing that there is no precedent for a Count being moved and accepted under circumstances like those which occurred last night?

Mr. O'CONNOR: May I also, in addition to what has already been stated, say that there is no precedent, not merely for the House being counted out when an Order in Council is under discussion, but still less for a Count taking place by the direct action of the Government itself when a hundred and fifty Members are within the precincts of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: Unless my memory betray me, I think there are numerous cases where a similar thing has happened. Undoubtedly it is for those who bring forward a Motion of this kind to keep a House in being until they go to a Division. That has always been the custom of the House. As has already been pointed out by the Leader of the House, this is an Order which does not require confirmation by the House; in fact, it is the other way round. Hon. Members criticised the Order on the Motion brought forward last night, and, having failed to carry that Motion, the subject falls, for the time being, at any rate.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I take this opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the method by which this Count was carried last night.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid in doing that the hon. Member will be starting on a vain quest. All I can do in this matter
is to administer the Rules of the House. I have no option. If a single hon. Member move a Count, I am obliged to count the House. If 40 Members do not happen to be present, then the House stands adjourned.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will give an opportunity for the further consideration of this matter?

Colonel GRETTON: Is there anything in the Rules of the House to prevent an hon. Member raising again a question relating to one of these Orders in Council within the prescribed time, nowithstanding that the House has been counted out upon one particular occasion in regard to that subject?

Mr. SPEAKER: Provided it be within the period set out in the Statute, the Debate on the subject which was discussed last night may be renewed after notice given.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will give us an opportunity to discuss this Order in Council before it becomes operative? May I point out that the only chance an hon. Member has of opposing an Order in Council is after 11 o'clock at night. Last night one of the Government's chief supporters, a man of very considerable activity normally, encouraged a Count all over the House, and invited hon. Members to come outside.

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member put his question without the frillings?

Mr. DEVLIN: I will put my question without the frillings. In view of the fact that this matter has not been decided, and that a decision has been prevented by a canvass of the Members of his own side, will the Leader of the House give another definite opportunity of discussing the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The proceedings in regard to this case have been pursuant to the Statute. The Order in Council has been laid upon the Table of the House. Such an Order lies on the Table for a certain number of days before it becomes operative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No.

Mr. DEVLIN: The hon. Member for Central Hull says that is not right.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There the Order lies for a certain number of days, during which it may be challenged before it becomes operative. If it be not challenged within that time, or if the House should not pass an Address requesting His Majesty to disallow it, then it becomes law by force of the Statute, and that will be the case according to the particular Order in Council to-morrow. This Order has been upon the Table of the House since; the 7th February, and it has been open to hon. Members to challenge it since that date. Instead of doing that the hon. Member opposite waited until the very last moment, and he really cannot expect those on the other side of the House to keep a House for him.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason my notice of Motion was not put down earlier was that there were legal proceedings in connection with this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Mr. DEVLIN: What security have the minority in this House that they can carry out their functions in Parliament if followers of the Government are to be-allowed to go round canvassing Members, and inviting them to leave the Chamber?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that matter.

Captain REDMOND: Will you give me leave to move the adjournment of the House in view of the circumstances and of the urgency of the case? The urgency of the case is due to the fact that this Order comes into operation to-morrow, and this is therefore a matter, as I submit with all respect, of definite urgent public importance.

Mr. SPEAKER: I certainly cannot say that the matter is an urgent one, seeing that it has been before the House since the 7th February.

Mr. DEVLIN: I will call attention to it on the adjournment.

EGYPT.

DECLARATION OF POLICY.

STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Leader of the House if he intends to make a statement with regard to Egypt to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The White Paper will show the House what has passed since the declaration of policy made by His Majesty's Government in December after the failure of Adly Pasha's mission to London. It also contains the declaration of policy upon which His Majesty's Government, in pursuance of the principles laid down in December, now propose to proceed.
We have long recognised, and said, that the Protectorate was no longer a satisfactory form of relationship between the British Empire and Egypt, but we have also said that, owing to the peculiar geographical position of Egypt, the Protectorate cannot be terminated unless British Imperial interests are fully safeguarded. This Adly Pasha and his colleagues were the first to admit, but the difficulty of reconciling these interests with Egyptian aspirations proved insuperable during the negotiations last summer. At the present moment there is no Egyptian Government which could go so far as to commit their country to a treaty relationship with Great Britain of a nature to afford us adequate safeguards in these matters, and his Majesty's Government have, therefore, determined to proceed by a unilateral declaration.
In this course they enjoy the wholehearted support of Lord Allenby and of the British officials of all ranks in the service of the Egyptian Government, and they are confident that their action will be equally endorsed by Parliament and by public opinion in this country.
There are three points in the Declaration:
First, the Protectorate is terminated and Egypt is free to work out such national institutions as may best be suited to the aspirations of her people.
Second, martial law will be abolished as soon as an Act of Indemnity has been
passed. On this a word of explanation is necessary. Martial law has not been used in the main, as some people suppose, to enforce British policy upon Egypt. It has been, on the contrary, the main instrument of government in the hands of Egyptian Ministers for certain important measures arising out of war conditions—such, for instance, as the regulation of house rents and the levying of certain taxes. An Act of Indemnity is, therefore, necessary before any Egyptian Government can dispense with martial law. It is for the Egyptian Government to pass the necessary legislation, but we undertake to impose no obstacles, provided the final Clause of the Declaration is duly observed.
Third, this final Clause defines the special relation between His Majesty's Government and Egypt. It declares that the following four matters are absolutely reserved to the discretion of His Majesty's Government:

(a) The security of the communications of the British Empire in Egypt.
(b) The defence of Egypt against all foreign aggression or interference, direct or indirect.
(c) the protection of foreign interests in Egypt and the protection of minorities.
(d) The Sudan.
We are prepared to make agreements with the Egyptian Government upon these matters in a spirit of mutual accommodation, whenever a favourable opportunity arises for the conclusion of such agreements. But until such agreements, satisfactory both to ourselves and to the Egyptian Government, are concluded, the status quo will remain intact.
I must make another point clear. We regard the special relations between ourselves and Egypt defined in this Clause as a matter concerning only ourselves and the Government of Egypt. Foreign Powers are not concerned, and we propose to state this unmistakably when the termination of the Protectorate is notified to them.
The welfare and integrity of Egypt are necessary to the peace and safety of the British Empire, which will, therefore, always maintain as an essential British interest the special relations between itself and Egypt long recognised by other Governments. The definition of these
special relations is an essential part of the declaration recognising Egypt as an independent sovereign State. His Majesty's Government have laid them down as matters in which the rights and interests of the British Empire are vitally involved, and they cannot permit them to be questioned by any other Power. In pursuance of this principle, they would regard as an unfriendly act any attempt at interference in the affairs of Egypt by another Power, and they would consider any aggression against the territory of Egypt as an act to be repelled by all the means at their command.
On the other hand, we of course accept the protection of foreign interests and minorities in Egypt as a responsibility inseparable from the special position which we claim in the country.
These responsibilities have not infrequently been brought home to his Majesty's Government in the course of the last few years, when the passions of the masses in Egypt have been inflamed against all foreigners, and all foreigners alike have suffered. It is to be hoped that, with the recognition of their status as an independent nation, the Egyptians will themselves realise how imperative it is to keep political passions within their proper bounds, and the efforts of any Egyptian Government in this direction will always enjoy the sympathy and support of His Majesty's Government.

SUDAN.

I now come to the Sudan, which is very important to the British Empire. The Sudan calls for more than a passing word. The combined efforts of Great Britain and Egypt were needed to rescue that vast country from the devastation and ruin into which the Mahdist movement had plunged it. Since the reconquest more than 20 years ago, Great Britain and Egypt have alike contributed men and money towards the restoration of peace and prosperity to what should one day prove a country as fertile and populous as it is now barren and empty.

His Majesty's Government will never allow the progress which has already been made, and the greater promise of future years, to be jeopardised.

Service in the Sudan is unpopular with Egyptians, and one of the main reasons
why conscription is disliked is due to the fact that it entails such service. On the other hand, Egyptian officials are not welcomed by the Sudanese, in whose minds the memories of Egyptian misgovernment 50 years ago still rankle.

Nor can His Majesty's Government agree to any change in the status of that country which would in the slightest degree diminish the security for the many millions of British capital which are already invested in its development—to the great advantage of the Sudan.

Egypt, on the other hand, has undeniable right to the most ample guarantees that the development of the Sudan shall never threaten or interfere with her existing water supply, or with that which she may require in order to bring her own territory under full cultivation. Such guarantees His Majesty's Government will be ready to afford, and there is no reason why they should in any way hamper or retard the progress of the Sudan.

The Declaration conforms closely to the policy laid down by agreement at the Imperial Conference, and fully covers all matters there defined as essential to Imperial security. It has been notified to the Dominion Governments, who take a very keen interest in the matter, in a telegram published in the White Paper (pp. 30–31).

His Majesty's Government have complete confidence in Lord Allenby. As the correspondence in the White Paper shows, the points on which he was invited home for consultation related to the Imperial and international effect of his proposals, on which His Majesty's Government had to be completely satisfied. As already explained, it was essential that the method of procedure to be adopted should thoroughly safeguard the special relations between His Majesty's Government and Egypt recognised by other Powers and essential to Imperial security.

Lord Allenby fully concurred in our proposals for this end, and has returned to Egypt in complete agreement with the course of action now recommended to Parliament.

His character, his achievements, and his handling of a very difficult situation during the past three years in Egypt have given him an exceptional position with the Egyptian people, and His Majesty's
Government have complete confidence that the interests of the British Empire, and the cause of a good understanding between ourselves and the Egyptian people, are equally secure in his hands.

Sir D. MACLEAN: In view of the very great importance of the statement which the Prime Minister has just made, and the impossibility of discussing it now, may I ask the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister what is the earliest opportunity they can give to the House for its discussion? I would suggest that probably the Vote on Account next week would furnish such an opportunity, either on the Committee stage—which, however, has, perhaps, been already pledged—or on the Report stage; and, if it be on the Report stage, I beg to give notice that I shall raise that question then.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot name an occasion for it at this moment. I think the House obviously ought to have an opportunity of studying the White Paper, and the very important declaration which has been made by my right hon. Friend, before they are asked to discuss it. As hon. Members know, we have undertaken to make no change in Egypt until the House has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion. I do not think we can take that opinion next week; we must finish the Irish Bill, and get on with some other business.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, taking the two days for the Irish Bill this week, and, perhaps, two days next week, an opportunity will not arise next week, quite naturally, for the discussion of this most important question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I certainly do not want to shirk discussion of this question. If the Vote on Account is ready to be taken next week, and the House is pleased to take the discussion on the Vote on Account, we should offer no objection; but I am not in a position to say that the Vote on Account will be ready for discussion next week.

Mr. CLYNES: Does the right hon. Gentleman think he will be able to give a definite statement to the House on Thursday as to whether we may have a discussion next week?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will try to find out to-morrow. It would, in any case, have to be a day towards the end of the week, and, if I could not answer to-morrow, perhaps I might give a definite answer on Monday.

Major BARNES: Can the Prime Minister give me an answer to the question which I addressed to him rather more than a week ago, and which I understood was to be deferred until to-day, namely, whether it is the intention of the Government to continue to exclude Zaghloul Pasha and his colleagues from participation in the discussion of Egyptian affairs?

Captain COOTE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether he does not think it desirable to wait until some opinion can be formed as to the reception of this declaration in Egypt, before a discussion is undertaken in this House?

Mr. MILLS: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to deny that Lord Allenby's first duty on his return to Egypt, with instructions to soothe the public unrest, was to release Zaghloul Pasha in 1919? Seeing that many of the statements are grossly inaccurate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter for Lord Allenby, who is in complete charge in Egypt. It is for him to make any recommendations in the first instance to His Majesty's Government. Whatever action he took in 1919 he took entirely on his own responsibility.

Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer given to me yesterday was that the Egyptian Parliament has not functioned since June, 1914, that it has automatically lapsed as an elective assembly, and that many of its members are dead, and by what process is it expected that a consensus of Egyptian opinion will be obtained?

The PRIME MINISTER: That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. SWAN: Can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that the Egyptian people will have an opportunity of choosing their own delegation to negotiate this Treaty between Egypt and
Britain, instead of its being appointed either by the High Commissioner or by our Cabinet?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think those are questions that might very well be reserved till the discussion in the House. I shall certainly have no objection to answering them when the time comes, but I think it would be very much better to discuss them when the Debate comes on.

Mr. SWAN: Will the Prime Minister reconsider the question that has been pressed here for the bringing back of Zaghloul Pasha from his exile, in order that he may have an opportunity, on behalf of the Egyptian people, to present their opinion?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question can be raised when the Debate takes place.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House take notice that we press very strongly for the discussion next week?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If I can get the Vote on Account ready by Thursday, we will put it down for Thursday.

Orders of the Day — CORONERS (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS CONTINUANCE) BILL [Lords.]

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

CLASS III.

LAW CHARGES AND COURTS OF LAW, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £18,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Scotland, and Bonus on certain Statutory Salaries.

Mr. J. JOHNSTONE: I observe that the sum desired is £18,000 to make up the deficiency on the total of £190,000.

Sir D. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. This is a Vote for law charges in Scotland, but I do not observe any Law Officer, or, indeed, any representative of Scotland on the Treasury Bench at all. I would ask whether it is in accordance with the practice of the Committee', on a Vote which relates particularly to one part of His Majesty's Dominions, where there are normally officers responsible for it, or in this case the Secretary for Scotland himself is responsible for the whole of the Scottish Departments, that he is not here present. If notice cannot be given to me that he will be here shortly, I should ask you to accept a Motion to report Progress.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. I have no doubt the Secretary to the Treasury will explain.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I think it will be within the memory of the right hon. Gentleman and other Members of the Committee that this is a Vote which, as long as the memory of any Member of the House runs, has always been answered for by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The actual business discharged by means of the money to be voted has peculiarly Scottish elements which require a knowledge of Scottish law, but as regards the financial aspects of it, with which we are now concerned, it is one of the Treasury sub-Departments, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman, on reflection, and perhaps on examining his memory, will remember that that has always been the case. Of course, if any questions should occur in the course of the discussion which I am unable to answer because they more particularly concern questions of Scottish law, one of the Scottish Law Officers will do so, and as I understand there is such a question which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise, I am sure he will find, before he does so, that one of the Scottish officers will be in the House.

Sir D. MACLEAN: If I am to under stand that within a brief space of time the Secretary for Scotland will be here, or that some Member of the Government who is a Scottish Member, of course I will await his appearance.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: This item of £18,000 is peculiarly a Scottish expenditure. It includes additional expenses incurred in connection with the Renfrew Aerodrome case. The Committee ought to know whether the £18,000 covers the whole expenses of that case. I rather think not, but a portion of the expenses of that ill-fated and badly misguided case is included in the £190,000. I say a misguided case, because it should never have been raised. If the Law Officers of the Crown had reflected on their action in the previous history of this case, I think they might have proceeded in a less expensive way to investigate the facts. The contract for this aerodrome was given to a Glasgow contractor on a time and line basis. During the progress of the contract dissatisfaction was expressed with the contractor's proceedings. I believe some of that dissatisfaction was formulated by means of anonymous com-
plaints, and some inquiry was made by an official, with the result that the con tractor was invited to abandon his contract, I believe under duress, as a threat of imprisonment was held over his head. Ultimately the contractor and his manager were arrested on a warrant issued at the instigation, I believe, of the Ministry of Munitions, or that section of the Ministry which had to do with the building of aerodromes, and were put in prison. The Law Officers of the Crown at that time very properly interfered, the men were released, and questions were raised in this House, but in the absence of the then Lord Advocate not much was made of it on the first day. The Lord Advocate appeared here a day or two later and completely, to the satisfaction of the House, explained the action he had taken and said that under no circumstances would the action of the contractor or his manager justify a criminal action There was no case for a criminal action being brought against these persons and they were released. But thereafter proceedings were taken against the contractor for repayment of some £50,000 or £60,000, which it was alleged was never repaid, and during the course of the case allegations were made amounting almost to fraud. It was suggested that there was a bogus wages bill, that materials were being taken away from the aerodrome at Renfrew, being misappropriated by the contractor and being used for his own private contracts.
The whole case for the Government broke down in the proceedings. The only suspicious element in the case was the alleged bogus wages bill, and I am satisfied that following the course which they took in having the men discharged from prison, if the Law Officers had conducted a private inquiry, they would very soon have got the facts of the case, and this most expensive litigation would have been avoided, and the money would have been saved. It is on these grounds that the Committee are justified in asking the. Secretary for Scotland why this litigation was undertaken. If it was for the purpose of clearing the air, it was a very costly way of doing so. I can conceive a certain atmosphere of mistrust being created in certain circumstances where it is desirable, in the interests of the man being attacked, and also of the Crown, that the issue should be cleared up, and
in some cases that can only be done by an action at law. I am convinced that the proper course in this case would have been to have conducted, either publicly or privately, an inquiry into the whole facts of the case, and we should have saved the country this comparatively large sum of money.
With regard to the allegation made against the man as to the bogus wages bill, I admit that that was the most suspicious feature of the case, but in the course of carrying out this contract at Renfrew, certain alterations involving very disagreeable work to the workmen were undertaken, and the men were paid what is called "dirty money." The difficulty of the contractor was that if he added the bonus for "dirty money" to the wages list, every man in the aerodrome would have been claiming increased wages as a right. Therefore, he kept the bonus for "dirty money" apart and introduced an extraordinary system of keeping his books. He put on the envelopes containing the bonus for "dirty money" fictitious names—John Smith, William Brown, and so on. No such men existed. The explanation he offered—which was borne out by all the evidence—was that he adopted this means because he had to show an account for the whole of the wages he paid, and if he had added the "dirty money" to the wages of the men, and had put it in the wages book, trouble would have occurred. I do not say that this explanation is quite satisfactory, but it was evident on all the facts of the case that he acted perfectly honestly. While it was a most extraordinary device that he adopted, an inquiry by one or two responsible persons, who could have had the contractor, the cashier and the manager before them, would very soon have elucidated all the facts, and this extraordinary course which was adopted, and which gave the suspicion of somewhat crooked ways, would have been explained and cleared up.
With regard to the charge of the appropriation of material, it was borne out at the trial that this contractor had another contract from the Government at another place. He was short of material and he was instructed to take some of the material away from the Renfrew Aerodrome and use it at the other place. He did so, and that led to the allegation that he was misappropriating materials belonging to
the Government. This charge was made against him, costly proceedings took place, and the man was completely exonerated. The Judge gave him a high testimonial for the attention he had given to the contract, and he left the Court without the slightest stain upon his character. The whole thing exploded into thin air, and instead of recovering £50,000 or £60,000 which it was alleged had been overpaid to the man, he was allowed to keep the money, except £2,000 which had been paid in excess. The contract was in course of execution, and it was not extraordinary that there should have been an over-payment. The whole of the costs were given against the Crown. Therefore, we are called upon to approve of the payment of a sum of at least £18,000, and perhaps much more, for the carrying through of this very costly litigation. In view of the earlier history of the case, and the fact that the Law Officers interfered and obtained the release of the men who were cast into prison by virtue of a warrant of the Ministry of Munitions, they should have probed the facts to the bottom before they made an allegation which involved this costly litigation. It is the extreme carelessness of Government Departments in engaging so light-heartedly upon cases of this kind that has involved the country in somewhat costly expenditure.

Mr. RAFFAN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
This is a matter that must be explored further in the interests of the taxpayers before the Committee can be asked to sanction the Vote. There is further information which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury might be justifiably asked to give before we are called upon to vote this money. No Member of the House can make a statement with greater clarity than the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he desires to do so, and the fact that so much is left in shadow in the explanation which he gave last night, leaves the impression that he is not particularly anxious to give a clear profit and loss account. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has pointed out that the Financial Secretary stated in answer to a question that this sum of £18,000 is entirely due to legal expenditure in the Renfrew case, but he gave no answer to the question whether the £18,000 was the entire expenditure, and whether in addi-
tion to the sum for which he now asks by this Supplementary Estimate, there is a sum in the original Estimate for this purpose. If there is no such sum an explanation is required, because after the Estimate for the year was prepared, the Government and their advisers were perfectly well aware that this case would be heard during the year, and on the most sanguine view of the decision which might be given, it was certain that some expenditure would be involved. I am entitled to ask whether, in addition to the £18,000 in the Supplementary Estimate, the law costs include a sum which was voted in the original Estimate. The Financial Secretary stated that the expenses were incurred in the main because "on the whole and on balance the decision was given against the Government." The sum involved was £50,000 or £60,000, and we are entitled to ask when he says that "on the whole and on balance the decision was given against the Government," what sum has been recovered as the result of this case. What is there to offset against the £18,000? What is there that can be added to the £18,000 as being in the original Estimate? Is there to be set on the other side of the ledger a sum as large as that? Is it really a fair description of the case to say that merely "on the whole and on balance the decision was against the Government?" Is it not a fact that in all the main questions the decision is given against the Government, and that on this total transaction we are paying out a sum in excess of £18,000 and we are reaping a very much smaller sum? If that be so one passes from the stage. at which questions should be rightly addressed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I do not know how far the responsibility of the Secretary for Scotland extends, but he ought to be able to give the Committee some information.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I wish to make my position clear. I think that it has been stated by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that I have no responsibility of any kind in connection with this Vote. This Vote is for the officers of the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Scotland, and the representatives in Scotland of the Treasury, over whom I have no control.

Mr. RAFFAN: Then is there to be no answer given to the statement that, according to the information at present before the Committee, it does appear that £18,000 or more has been expended in this way, apparently quite improvidently? If the Law Officers of the Crown, who apparently gave advice in this matter, had been consulted by a business man, and had given the advice which they appear to have given here, everybody would have said that the result would be not merely disastrous but ruinous. In those circumstances, surely the advice which a good lawyer would have given a business man would have been to endeavour to effect a settlement. Was any effort made to arrive at a settlement I Was there any attempt to avoid all these costly proceedings by ascertaining from the other party to the action whether he was prepared to come to some sort of a settlements When the Government or their representatives, none of whom will be able to speak here to-day, made against this gentleman and those associated with him a charge which could not be substantiated, it did not make it easier to negotiate with him, but even in those circumstances I should imagine that some effort should have been made to arrive at a settlement before this huge expenditure was incurred. Whoever is responsible for this advice, and certainly it cannot be the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he may be able chivalrously to hold a shield over some of his colleagues, but he cannot be in possession of the full information or give any full defence. In view of the fact that apparently we are to be told that only a technical defence can be given in this Committee and that no defence will be made by those who are responsible, I move this reduction.

Mr. YOUNG: I wish to deal with the specific questions which have been raked by way of criticism of this Motion. The first is as to the total amount which these proceedings cost and whether the £18,000 is the only item against the Government. As the Committee will guess, these are the costs of the actual litigation which arose in this matter. There were some costs of a preliminary investigation not connected with the actual litigation. Whether or not that will be considered as something which should be added to the £18,000 I could not say, but the preliminary costs, which would be between
£1,000 and £2,000, were provided in the previous Estimate. The other questions are in reference to the nature of the Judgment. There is a concise summary of the Judgment before me, to which I may refer as a popular summary, but as in no way presenting the exact legal aspect. The Lord Ordinary cleared the member of the firm concerned against any aspersions, but granted a decree against him for £1,000, and it was assessed as having been appropriated by the dishonesty of interested agents, but as it was established that the member of the firm himself was not aware of that system, and condemned it when it came to his knowledge, his Lordship held that though the amount of £1,000 had been recovered yet, as it was a small proportion of a very large amount in the exercise of his discretion, it was not such a proportion as to entitle us to costs.
As regards the further criticism advanced by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Johnstone) in reference to the conduct of these proceedings the general answer is that it is very easy to be wise after the event, and in the matter of legal proceedings of this sort there is only one good rule, and that is to follow the advice of your legal adviser. These proceedings were taken upon the advice of the legal advisers of the Crown and with their approbation. The Committee will have noticed from the general account which I have given of the proceedings that very grave issues were involved, issues which I venture to submit, in view of the large sum which was involved, it was impossible to leave without due investigation. On the, best advice which we received there was grave reason to suppose that there had been irregular practices and that the contractor had been overpaid by no less than £50,000. If there was any prima facie case for supposing that that was so then it was a case which certainly should have received at the hands of the State the most vigorous examination. Advice having been given by the Law Officers to take appropriate legal proceedings the executive would have been gravely lacking in their duty to the public if they had left this case unprosecuted. I quite recognise the truth in a great deal put forward by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Johnstone), but let me remind the Committee that we have now had the advantage of studying all the evidence and the cross-examination, and
I believe that under the circumstances the Committee will come to the conclusion that this was the fortune of war in a big law suit—after all, nobody can guarantee success before a tribunal—and that the expenditure is justifiable, and I hope I may ask the Committee to pass this Supplementary Estimate.

Sir D. MACLEAN: This is an example, which the Committee might well take to heart, of how not to do it. Here was a purely Scottish case where the advice and guidance of Scottish Law Officers, and of the Secretary of Scotland in particular, would have been of the greatest advantage to the Treasury.

Mr. YOUNG: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could have quite heard or have quite understood what I have been trying to convey. Of course the legal advice in this case was the advice of the Scottish Law Officers—of course.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I accept that fully, but it does strike me as odd that at an early stage of these proceedings the Secretary of State for Scotland rose in his place and disclaimed any responsibility of any kind in this matter.

Mr. MUNRO: I am sorry to interrupt, but the right hon. Gentleman knows enough about Scottish law to know the distinction between the functions of the Law Officers of Scotland and the Secretary for Scotland, and I repeat that the Secretary for Scotland has no responsibility whatever for this.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It is futile to observe that it is a pity that he has not, and that I hope the time is not far distant when matters of this kind will be discussed and settled in Scotland by Scotsmen. That is a matter which can only be changed by legislation and is entirely outside the scope of this discussion. The real point urged here is that they did not proceed more cautiously before launching this very expensive litigation. I was about to remark, when the Secretary to the Treasury intervened, that if there was one distinction in litigation between Scotsmen and Englishmen it is the extraordinary capacity of Scotsmen for achieving a settlement which is very often satisfactory, on the whole, to both parties and which avoids legal expenses which their brethren on the other side of the Tweed often find themselves
plunged into. If this matter had been managed more in accordance with the way in which Scotsmen, as a rule, conduct their litigation, the considerable amount of money now asked for would have been saved.

Mr. R. McLAREN: While it is very clear that considerable expense was incurred in fighting this case, I do not think, on the whole, the money has been badly spent. Prior to the proceedings coming into Court there was a feeling in Glasgow and throughout the West of Scotland that a great many things were being done in connection with the aerodrome which were very wrong, and I do not think the people would have been satisfied with an inquiry into the matter. If for nothing else than to allay the feeling amongst business people it is a good thing the case came on. What has been said by the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Johnstone) has a good deal of truth in it, but there is another side. It was clearly proved that very many things were being done which were entirely wrong, and that the Government were to some extent being robbed. It could not be proved, however, that the contractor himself was a party to it, and because of that he got off; but on the whole, I think, the money has not been badly spent. A simple inquiry would not have got the same publicity as the case in a Court of Session, and the public would not have been satisfied; they would have felt that the thing had been burked. It has allayed the strong feeling of the public in the West of Scotland and shown that while things were wrong they were not so black as it was pictured. I think the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) should curtail his indignation, because the question whether the case should have come to the Courts was decided first of all by the Treasury. In the usual way, which I think is a wrong way, word is sent down to the Lord Advocate—I speak now from knowledge—for his acquiescence, but as a matter of fact, before all these things come to the Lord Advocate the members of the English Bar acting for the Government have made up their mind that the case is to go on, and poor old Scotland has very little to say in the matter. I hope things will be altered in the time to come. If they were left to members of the Bar in Scotland things would be better managed. I think, how-
ever, the £18,000 has not been badly spent when it has exposed the very bad system of conducting things at this aerodrome.

Major M. WOOD: I do not know that I follow my hon. Friend in his argument; it seems to me to be rather inconclusive. At first sight it looks as though a great deal of money has been spent unnecessarily, but I do not know the details of the case, and it is a subsidiary point to which I wish to draw attention. I want to find out who is really responsible for the advice upon which action was taken. That is what we want to know, and we have not been told it. I do not know if it was the advice of the Law Officers of Scotland, or the persons in the Departments responsible for getting up the facts upon which they were to base their decisions. I have always thought that England does matters of this kind very much better than Scotland, because it has a Department specially for the purpose. There is no officer in Scotland analagous to the Treasury Solicitor in England; if there were, cases of this kind would not occur. The Treasury Solicitor is responsible for investigating all cases of this kind, but in Scotland nobody is set apart for that duty. Different law agents are appointed for different cases as they come along, and if we had in Scotland a Department which would take over the duties at present carried out by the Crown Agent, who gets something over £1,000 a year, and does not devote his whole time to the subject—

The CHAIRMAN: It is hardly in order to propose the creation of a new Department under this Vote.

Major WOOD: I hope I am not irrelevant, Mr. Hope. I am trying to show that if we had a system in Scotland such as we have in England—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that can be shown. The hon. Member is perfectly in order in asking who was responsible, who gave the advice or failed to give the advice; but he cannot suggest a change in the law on this Estimate.

Major WOOD: I am not suggesting a change in the law. Am I not entitled to point to a change in the practice which might save money? I should have thought that was in order.

The CHAIRMAN: The range of discussion on a Supplementary Estimate is very
narrow. The hon. Member is perfectly in order in probing this matter, to find out who was responsible, but I do not think he would be in order in advocating a change of system.

5.0 p.m.

Major WOOD: I will confine myself to asking that question. Who was responsible for the mistake? Was it the law officers or did the mistake arise because the case was not sufficiently investigated before it was put before the law officers. It would strike me, from a cursory view of the case, that it was not properly investigated beforehand, and I hope what has happened in this case will be kept in view by the Secretary for Scotland and those associated with him when they come, as I hope they will come soon, to alter the practice in regard to these matters.

Mr. YOUNG: May I intervene to answer the direct specific question which the hon. and gallant Member has put as to who was responsible for the advice given in this case. There is not the smallest foundation for what he put forward—it is purely an effort of the imagination—suggesting that there was not sufficient investigation. On the contrary, this case has been gone into several times It has actually been discussed in this House, as will be remembered, in the course of the Debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill of 1919.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I ask the Financial Secretary if it is not the fact that when the question was first raised in this House there was a demand made for proceedings of a different character, and that the then Lord Advocate had to make a very strong speech in defending the course of taking a civil action?

Mr. YOUNG: The hon. Member for Springburn is perfectly correct. I have not mentioned the circumstances because pressure on that occasion was directed towards our bringing a criminal prosecution against these parties, and in view of the circumstances, judgment having gone in their favour in the civil Courts, I should be the last now to refer to any of the arguments used on that occasion in favour of a criminal prosecution. In June, 1919, and this is the specific answer to the question, the Lord Advocate of the time concurred in a civil action being set on foot against the contractor.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: It is not quite clear yet where the Ministry of Munitions came in. As I understand, the contractor in this case was arrested on a warrant, and I should like to know who ordered that arrest, and whether the advice of either the English or Scottish Law Officers was taken before the arrest was made. It appears to me that this was a clear breach, having regard to the subsequent action, and that it caused a good deal of extra expense. I think, as a matter of establishing a precedent and a safeguard for the future, we should have some certainty that Government Departments do not start proceedings in England without the advice of the English Law Officers and in Scotland without the advice of the Scottish Law Officers. Is it not the case that a high official of the Ministry of Munitions ordered the arrest of the contractor without the advice of the Scottish Law Officers, and that then, on the good advice of the Lord Advocate, the contractor was released? That rather complicated the issue on which the Lord Advocate had to advise subsequently, and we ought to have an assurance that no further legal proceedings will be taken on behalf of the Government without the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown.

Mr. TAYLOR: I desire to elaborate the remarks of the hon. Members who have spoken about the feeling in Scotland concerning the Renfrew aerodrome and about the alleged malpractices that were carried on. The newspapers in the West of Scotland were full of letters about it, and I, among other Members, had questions put to me about what action was going to be taken to bring the contractors to proof.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): I only interrupt the hon. Member to say that I understand there is nothing in this Vote which has anything to do with the criminal proceedings. This only refers to the civil proceedings, and if that is so, it would not be in order to go into the question of the criminal proceedings.

Mr. TAYLOR: I do not intend to touch further on the question of the criminal proceedings, but the claim for refund of money that had been overpaid was also a subject of correspondence in the newspapers. I was a little astonished to find
the challenge to this Vote coming from the other side of the House—from the very parties who asked why was something not done to clear up this mystery. Now that the action has been taken and the blame has been put upon the proper shoulders in regard to some of the allegations and the contractor has been cleared of others, I do not see how the party who claimed that action should 'be taken can now turn round and say that the money has been badly spent. I remember Lord Advocate Clyde when he was challenged to take action made a memorable speech and said that if any evidence could be brought before him he would be quite prepared to take criminal action, but that no evidence had been brought before him to justify a criminal action. It is quite evident that before an action was raised in the Court of Session some evidence must have been forthcoming to warrant taking that action to recover the £50,000. The whole system of "time and line" that was carried on during the War was a bad system because it did not matter what wages were paid. It was all to the contractors' benefit. He got his ten per cent, and in this contract undoubtedly wages were paid 2d., 3d. and 4d. an hour more than was paid to similar trades in the West of Scotland. That was what raised the question in the West of Scotland and caused so much trouble and made the public demand an inquiry. The Law Officers could do nothing less on account of the agitation which took place than raise this action. If they were not successful that was because they had a bad case on some points, or else because of the interpretation which the judges put upon the evidence. But the fact that at least they got £l,000 that had been paid and that should not have been paid, and proved practices that were not creditable to any self-respecting firm justified the action.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Of all the foolish things one can possibly do, one of the worst is to indulge in recriminations after you have lost in litigation. All disappointed litigants can be wise after the event, and wish they had never taken the action. No matter how careful, how-exhaustive or how keen the examination of a solicitor may be—and my hon. Friend on the other side ought to know that from personal experience—it may turn out there are elements on the other side, and witnesses on the other side, which were
totally unforeseen. In this case tremendous pressure was brought to bear. A public scandal had been created by some means or other, and this action at least dissipated that scandal, and cleared the public mind from the miasma of stories that were going about, and as the hon. Member for Renfrewshire (Mr. Johnstone) said, it vindicated the contractor who had been the victim of these stories. I think in the public eye he was completely vindicated, and nobody can say that that money was ill spent. It is a pity it was necessary, but I do not think either the Law Officers of the Crown or the Crown solicitors, who are a particularly reputable firm, have anything to regret, either in regard to the way in which the case was conducted or the fact that the case was embarked upon.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: There seems to be more need of inquiry into this case now than there was before the explanation was given. The hon. Member who spoke last suggested that the Law Officers of the Crown gave advice in this case, or were responsible for the action that was taken, but the representative of the Government who spoke just now did not say that the Scottish Law Officers gave advice at all; he merely said they concurred in the advice that was given. What we are entitled to know is who it is that did give this advice. Was it an English or a Scottish Law Officer?

Mr. YOUNG: I am not sure my hon. Friend heard what I said, but there should be no doubt about this. These proceedings were taken on the advice of the Law Officers, and those Law Officers were the Scottish Law Officers.

Mr. GRAHAM: That is so far satisfactory, and I do not know that I am going to object personally to paying the expenses now, after the work has been done, but Scottish Members of all parties have suggested that in those matters it should be Scotland and the Scottish Department that should be entirely responsible, and I do not think it is at all to the credit of the Government, or even to the credit of this Committee, that the representative from Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland, should have to rise in his place and say that he had absolutely no responsibility whatever for a case of this character that took place in Scot-
land. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan) that, having had this hour's time in discussing the question and getting the explanations that we have got, in the hope that we may have amendment in the future, he might now withdraw his Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: On whose advice was the warrant issued for the arrest of the contractor, which was afterwards cancelled by the Law Officers for Scotland? I submit that we are entitled to know who made the first mistake which the Scottish Law Officers afterwards had to correct.

Mr. RAFFAN: With the consent of the Committee, I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

COUNTY COURTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses connected with the County Courts, including Bonus to County Court Judges.

Mr. RENDALL: It would be interesting to know exactly upon what basis the increase of payments by litigants referred to in the Estimate have been made. As I understand it, a Committee was appointed which raised these fees in the County Courts, so that the State is no longer making a present of the services of these Courts to persons who are litigants, as was previously the case. Can the learned Solicitor-General inform us whether these fees meet the bill which they ought to meet? In regard to the judges, it would be interesting to know what the bonuses are, if they are based on any particular percentage, and whether they have now some maintenance or travelling allowances which they had not formerly, and also whether this bonus is being paid—of which personally I am entirely in favour—or whether it is connected with certain pension rights which have been given to County Court judges, I understand, and which enables them to retire in a way which was not previously possible. I think this point arises under this Vole. Under the item dealing with additional fees in bank-
ruptcy earned by registrars, I should like to know whether these additional fees are being earned because of the increased number of bankruptcies, and I should also like to know whether there has been an increase in the general character of the fees, and whether that increase falls on the bankrupts or on the creditors. The item "Postage for the Courts" seems to be very large, and I am not at all clear what it means. I was under the impression, with regard to the County Courts or other Courts, that when the civil or legal establishments of the country made use of our postal arrangements, they got free postage. I do not therefore understand why there should be any need for an increase in the charges for the postal business of the Courts.

Mr. YOUNG: I confess that, as regards some of the very technical questions which have been put by the hon. Member, I should have been glad to have been given notice that he was going to ask them. As a matter of fact, the necessity for this Supplementary Estimate is not in any way accounted for by any question of County Court judges' salaries, and so on, which are all provided for under the original Estimate. Perhaps I can best meet the hon. Member's convenience by supplying him with full information as regards the scheme of bonus that is being paid on County Court judges' salaries, with the explanation that, as a matter of fact, it is not raised by this Supplementary Estimate at all, and none of the money is necessitated by any question as regards judges' salaries.

Mr. RENDALL: If the hon. Member will look at Item B, he will see it says there, "County Court officers, etc., salaries and allowances," and that it then gives the original Estimate, the revised Estimate, and the additional sum required.

Mr. YOUNG: I will explain, if I may. The increase under the heading of "Salaries and Allowances" is due to other quite distinct causes. It is simply due to the general circumstances which have involved the necessity of the whole of this Supplementary Estimate, and the increase in litigation, which is the unfortunate result of the trade depression, which has both caused more business in the Bankrutcy Court and is also responsible for more plaints in
general, because creditors have got to be more active in the recovery of debts, and debtors are less willing to pay than in better times. Owing to the system of remuneration of registrars and their clerks and so on, it has led to increased remuneration to them, because to some extent their remuneration is by fee and other payments, which depend upon the amount of business. The number of plaints has increased from 445,973 in 1920 to 560,000 in 1921, and the scale of remuneration laid down by Statute increases automatically with that litigation, which is the reason we have to take an additional sum. I explained to the Committee, on previous Estimates, how difficult it is, in dealing with litigation, to make a forecast so accurate as in other circumstances, where increase of business leads to an increase of salaries, in connection with the bankruptcy business, as it depends on the number of cases in the Courts in connection with bankruptcy. That number has increased from 1,414 in 1920 to 3,315 in 1921. Another question the hon. Member asked me was with regard to postage.

Mr. RENDALL: Have these additional fees charged under B and D achieved their purpose? Have they enabled the Court to pay their way without throwing an extra burden on the taxpayers? The answer is no, or you would not want this money.

Mr. YOUNG: The answer is yes, but I am coming to that presently. The next question in the order of the questions was with regard to postage. The original Estimate was for £11,000, and we shall need £15,000. The cause of that is the ordinary rise of postal rates in conducting the business of the Court.

Mr. RENDALL: My question is, why has all this postage not been free? I do not understand why any postage is paid by County Court Registrars.

Mr. YOUNG: I can only say that is not the way the financing of this particular part of the public service is organised or is conducted. As a matter of fact, I think it would be a retrograde step if we were now to increase the free postage facilities to Government Departments, and to remove any postal restrictions in Government Departments. As regards financial reform and economy, I should look myself rather to a move-
ment in the other direction towards reducing unnecessary expenditure. As the final question, I was asked about Appropriations-in-Aid. The increase in expenditure, as the Committee will see, is set off by an increase in the total number of fees received, and this is the answer to the hon. Member's question, that this increase has been more than sufficient to counterbalance the expenditure. When we took the original Estimate we thought we should only get about £300,000 this year, but it turns out that the actual receipts will be in the neighbourhood of £410,000. The increase, of course, is due to increased business, but the Committee will notice that the figure in the Supplementary Estimate is only the token amount of £10, which is taken in order to bring the Supplementary Estimate before the House, and, as a matter of fact, the result of the year's trading—if I may use that phrase —for the County Courts is that the fees are more than required for the expenditure.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: Am I right in understanding that comparatively recently a quite new arrangement was made by which registrars have been paid salaries —because my attention has been called to a recent appointment—and, if that be so, I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman can say whether he thinks there will be a saving on this Vote in that respect?

Mr. YOUNG: Yes, there has been recently a fresh arrangement — a reorganisation, as it were—of the salaries of the registrars, and I think I can certainly, say that both the purpose and the effect of this arrangement are in the interests of economy.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: Is it proposed that in future all registrars shall be paid by salary?

Mr. YOUNG: I should be rather sorry to answer a question on what is a somewhat detailed and technical matter, but, generally speaking, the effect of the arrangement is to regularise the salary, and to get rid of what are very old-fashioned anomalies. The full details will be available as to the arrangement.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: How is the bonus paid?

Mr. YOUNG: Perhaps I should not be justified in detaining the Committee with
the details, but I can give the hon. Member any details required as regards the bonus scheme.

Question put, and agreed to.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, ETC.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and Court of Criminal Appeal as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund, including Bonus on certain Statutory Salaries, and the Salaries and Expenses of Pensions Appeals Tribunals.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): I have been asked to explain this Vote. It is accounted for by the Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor. The Committee will remember that under the Act of 1919 this House set up a Pensions Appeals Tribunal for the purpose of giving an independent tribunal to which either officer or man could appeal if dissatisfied after his case had been decided by the Ministry of Pensions. It was felt wise by the House that there should be this independent Tribunal after the case had been dealt with—if I may express it so—departmentally. The duty of appointing this Tribunal was laid upon the Lord Chancellor, and there was chosen one legal representative as Chairman, a man who had to be a barrister or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing; secondly, a disabled officer or man; and, thirdly, a duly-qualified medical practitioner. In 1921, when the War Pensions Act was passed, power was given to the Minister to make what was called final awards, but equally in that case an appeal was given to the applicant to the Appeal Tribunal.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is proceeding to explain the Acts of 1919 and 1921. If I allow that now other hon. Members will be entitled to continue the discussion on those lines. It would not be in order on a Supplementary Estimate to go into the statutory obligations under the two Acts named. The policy of establishing the Pensions Appeal Tribunal was settled under the Acts of 1919 and 1921, and by the original Vote. The only question now before us is whether additional tribunals and the expenses of such tribunals should be approved.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am much obliged to you, Sir Edwin. I only meant to refer to these matters for the advantage, if it be an advantage, of the Committee, but I gladly accept your ruling, and state that the original Estimate provided for the setting up of nine of these tribunals. The Estimate was based upon the average number of appeals presented week by week during the period up till December, 1920. They were about 401. After the Estimates had been prepared, in 1921, there arose a very much larger number of appeals, and many arrears accumulated. It then became a question of how we should deal with these arrears. Hon. Members will, I am sure, quite appreciate the fact that nothing could be worse than to hold up appeals and so leave a number of persons in a position of uncertainty as to whether or not the appeal would be allowed. It was essential to deal swiftly with the cases, and under the circumstances the Lord Chancellor appointed more tribunals, to the number of 24, in various districts. These were kept hard at work during 1921, but by the end of the year they had succeeded in clearing off the arrears of appeals. The result was that it was possible to demobilise four tribunals. The remaining 20 are dealing principally with current cases, and not arrears. It was quite impossible to forsee the increasing number of appeals, and it was imperative to deal with them speedily, hence the original Estimate, which had provided for only nine tribunals, has been exceeded. The probability is that if the work further decreases, it will be possible to decrease the number of tribunals sitting. I hope the decrease in the number of tribunals will continue and the expenditure will gradually decrease.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by£100.
This is one of the very few opportunities hon. Members have of discussing to some extent the results of the administration of the appeals tribunals. You, Sir Edwin, by your own decision, have rather narrowed the possibilities of the discussion. This is a matter which is becoming more and more serious. The peculiar position in which the country is placed is seen in this fact, that while we are asking for a Supplementary Estimate for appeals tribunals, the Minister of Pensions in another Department is actually over estimating to the extent of
over 10½ million pounds. In one department of the same machine they are coming here for a Supplementary Estimate, and, on the other hand, they are over-estimating by 10½ millions. As a matter of fact, the arrears that, have to be dealt with by these appeals tribunals are connected with the over-estimate of the Pensions Minister himself. The appeals tribunals are doing the work which they were never intended to do originally. Arrears of cases are due to the fact that the Pensions Ministry itself is deliberately using the appeals tribunals for settling cases which they ought to settle themselves. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman some facts. We have had complaint after complaint upon this subject, and my attention was drawn to it towards the end of last year. I know of some individual cases which were dealt with by the Newcastle Appeals Tribunal which were gross cases. As a result of those investigations I asked the Pensions Minister if he would get from the appeals tribunals the number of cases which had been dealt with by a particular tribunal during the last six months. I was prepared for a good deal as a result of what I had seen and heard, but I discovered that, according to the figures of the Pensions Minister, out of 1,391 cases which came before the Newcastle Appeals Tribunal, 1,162 were un successful and only 229 were successful. This might seem that people were making dishonest claims, but I am wondering what is the position in the districts where the appeals tribunals are operating. It seems to me from the correspondence I have had that a very serious state of things is operating, and I think the result complained of is due to two things. This House, at the request of ex-service men, forfeited the right of bringing their influence to bear upon those tribunals, and we have had no other opportunity of dealing with the results. I think the ex-service men, in the light of the experience they have had, will be ready to reverse their decision to-morrow. That is my experience in the part of the country with which I am most familiar.

Captain LOSEBY: What decision?

Mr. LAWSON: The decision that the appeals tribunals shall be independent and under the Lord Chancellor, instead of being subject to the Pensions Minister.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am loth to interrupt hon. Members who want to have a general discussion, but I have already given a decision with regard to this matter. The general principle is settled by the Act of 1919 and the Act of 1921 and by the original Estimate, and the only question now before us seems to me to be as to whether these additional tribunals to deal with arrears should be set up. The hon. Member has tried to bring in a good many points which he wished to raise and he has done so, confining himself at the same time to what is germane to this Vote. If I allow a discussion on the general principle, I am afraid we should come to what would practically be a Second Reading Debate on the Act of 1919 and 1921.

Mr. LAWSON: The point I am trying to make is that these extra Appeals Tribunals are necessary because they are doing the work of the Pensions Minister and his ordinary medical boards. The medical boards are turning men wholesale before the Appeals Tribunals, and I could cite case after case of the most disgraceful character where there ought to be no question whatever about them, and which have been sent before the Appeals Tribunal and the arrears are caused by the large number of cases sent to those tribunals which ought to have been settled before they got there. This is due to the fact that they have not the advantage of local knowledge which before those tribunals counts for nothing. On the other hand this House has nothing to do with the position. Take the case of a man who has served five years in the War. I know of such a case. He was a strong man and he served all through the War. It was quite clear when he came back that he was nothing like the same man, and one could see him shrinking almost weekly. Eventually this man dies and the Pensions Appeals Tribunal immediately dismisses the widow's claim, although every person in the immediately locality knows that this man died as a result of his services in the War. I could cite cases of that kind by the dozen. I want to take this opportunity of making a protest against the administration of the Appeals Tribunals, and I think this House will have to take the administration of this business under its own jurisdiction, and decide what course it is going to follow. Here we have 1,100 cases out of 1,300 refused in
six months. For these reasons I think I am justified in proposing this reduction, and I shall press my Amendment to a Division because this is the only opportunity we shall have of registering our protest.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has waxed very indignant over the decisions of the Appeals Tribunal, but there is another side to the question. I could give an instance where in a certain place a certain man received a pension for a wound which he received in the War. There was another man who had received a wound in the War, and it got better, and he went to work, but hearing that the first man had received a pension he decided to see if he could not get one as well. He got a letter from the local clergy, and it was decided that he was entitled to a pension and he got one. I do not suppose that that is an isolated case. There are many of those who have been wounded who are now perfectly well and capable and earning their own livelihood, who, hearing that some friend or relation of theirs has got a pension, have immediately said, "I will see if I cannot get a pension." I am inclined to think that under these circumstances it is very-necessary that these Appeals Tribunals should be set up. The only objection I have to it, and even that has been answered by the learned Solicitor-General, is that the original Estimate was rather bad. An increase of £58,000 in one item is rather striking. I understand it was quite unforeseen and arose from the very considerable number of these appeals. I do not think the salaries of the chairmen and medical members, in view of the important duties they perform, are excessive. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend this question: Is there any bonus included in these pensions? The heading of the Estimate says "Bonus," but that might apply only to the original Estimate. Is any bonus included in these salaries, and, if so, what is it, and under what Clause has it been included?

Mr. CAIRNS: I want to second the motion for the reduction of this Vote, and I am going to cite some cases in respect of the decisions of the Appeal Courts. I hold in my hand a copy of a letter from a medical man, declaring a certain ex-soldier's case to be genuine and severe, he being incapable of labour
during the cold weather. This man served during the whole of the War. He was a strong, healthy man, and is now 41 years of age. He has a wife and five children. His only income is 5s. 6d. from an approved society. He is dependent on the Poor Law, and his eldest boy, in order to help support the family, has gone to sea, sending all his wages home. I want to put it to the marital-minded Members of this House that here is the case of a man 41 years of age, quite prepared to fight for his country, who is now practically starving. I have sat on Appeal Courts and I have been a- recruiting member. I always promised that when the soldiers came back we would do all we could for them. Yet here is a family actually starving. The man has been to my house several times. He cannot sleep at nights. He cannot work. He has been done in by the War.
Here is another case which has been before the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. The Secretary of the Tribunal sends a letter to a man regretting that it is not possible to arrange for his case to be heard that week as the Courts had risen for the Vacation Cases of this kind tempt one to indulge in strong language. The Courts have adjourned for the Vacation while the man, his wife and children have nothing to live on. We ought to have some sympathy for a soldier who cannot get his case heard under such circumstances. The Secretary further wrote to this man "an appointment has been made for you to attend the R.I.V. at New-castle-on-Tyne." But the man has no money to go there. He cannot pay his fare. Where does the milk of human kindness come in. There ought to be something of that commodity left. Here again is an urgent case, and when the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) talks about 1,100 cases out of 1,400 being turned down, here I have one which a doctor has declared to be urgent, and yet it, too, is turned down. The medical officer admitted that the man's illness was due to his war service. The Appeal Court declared that it was not due to that, neither was it accelerated by it. Hear what the soldiers in my division say in regard to this matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may give illustrations either to support or oppose the proposed expenditure for setting up these additional
tribunals, but he cannot use his illustrations in this discussion on the Supplementary Estimate to discuss the policy settled by the original Estimate. We are asked here to consent to the appointment of additional tribunals, if the hon. Member can give cases either to support or oppose the setting up of these additional tribunals. But it is not in Order to indulge in a general discussion on a policy already agreed to.

Mr. CAIRNS: My only intention was to draw the attention of the Committee to decisions given by the tribunals which were contrary to the medical evidence and the history of the man.

6.0 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It depends upon how the hon. Member wishes to use his illustration. If he wishes to condemn the whole method, the Acts under which it is administered, and the policy which was settled on the original Estimate, that would be out of order. If, on the other hand, he wishes to put forward a case for the non-appointment of these tribunals, or a case for additional tribunals, he would be in order in giving his illustration. It depends upon what he wishes to illustrate.

Mr. CAIRNS: My position is that it is a tribunal which ought not to exist any longer.

Captain LOSEBY: My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) expressed surprise that two Estimates should be necessary in regard to this matter, seeing that the Ministry of Pensions had a surplus while another Department has this deficit. That is not surprising to me, because it was, rightly or wrongly, at the request, urgently pressed by ex-service men throughout the country, that these appeal tribunals were set up, quite apart from and independently of the Ministry of Pensions. Previously to the setting up of these tribunals, in which I had some share, the right of the pensioner was no right at all. It was pro gratiâ, and the soldier could not claim it as a right. Those of us who put the case of these soldiers strongly urged upon the Government, through the Select Committee, firstly to make the pension as of right, and, secondly, at the request of the soldier, to give him an appeal, right away from the Ministry of Pensions which made the award, to this independent
court under the Lord Chancellor. At the same time I would venture to express the opinion that I have expressed every time I have spoken on these appeal courts. Not one member, as I believe, of that Select Committee which made this original recommendation, believed that the setting up of this appeal tribunal, which we believed to be necessary and vital, should deprive the soldier of the Minister's prerogative in those cases where the appeal court or court of first instance had made a terrible mistake; and I would venture an opinion that the Minister of Pensions would vastly strengthen and increase the value of these appeal courts if he could at any early date introduce some legislation which would enable him, only in those cases where an appeal court has made a quite obvious mistake, as does occur—

The CHAIRMAN: That is not in order. It has already been ruled that we can only now deal with the appointment of additional tribunals for dealing with urgent appeals, or assessment tribunals. To review the question of the tribunals generally, or different methods of administering the Act, would certainly not be in order.

Captain LOSEBY: I will not follow that any longer; I was only answering a point that had been made. With regard to the arrears, which I understand account for this particular Supplementary Estimate, I should like to say that I well remember the time when these Appeal Courts were so much in arrear that it was one of the greatest grievances throughout the country. I think that the way in which the authorities have not only overtaken the great amount of arrears, but have taken the initiative and established other Courts, and increased them in order to tackle these arrears, has been entirely admirable. In dealing with these questions, expedition is almost the first thing, and I should like respectfully to congratulate the Minister on that point, in regard to which his action has, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street will agree, given the greatest possible satisfaction to the pensioners throughout the country.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: In supporting this Amendment, I shall try to keep within the purview of the Debate. I see that under item N the Chairman is paid £800 a year. I wish the Minister of Pensions
were present, so that we might express to him the opinion which I believe to be held by every hon. Member on this side of the Committee, that, so far as the decisions of these chairmen and tribunals are concerned, the Ministry of Pensions is simply sheltering behind the tribunals, and doing a great injustice to the ex-service men. We may as well be perfectly frank about it, because there are numerous complaints from all over the country, not only as regards one tribunal but as regards all the tribunals that are in existence to-day. I do not know whether I shall be in order in quoting the decision of one of these tribunals, which I should like the learned Solicitor-General to keep in mind when he is reporting to the Minister of Pensions. A certain soldier, who had served during the whole period of the War, was suffering from malaria. He received a pension while he was getting treatment, but, after the soldier died, his widow—

The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member arguing that the administration is so bad that there ought to be no more of these additional tribunals? Does he wish that there should be no more of them?

Mr. GRIFFITHS: No, Sir, although I think that the ex-service men will be able to get better justice, anyhow, even if they were not in existence. It is, however, the £800 received by the chairmen of the tribunals that I am raising.

The CHAIRMAN: Following the previous ruling of the Deputy-Chairman, it would not be in order to discuss the tribunals unless the hon. Member is putting forward the argument that they are bad, and that he opposes the additional tribunals entirely. If he is doing that, he might quote the case to which he was referring as an illustration.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I do oppose them.

Sir F. BANBURY: You said you did not.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Now I shall go on citing my case. The widow's pension was stopped immediately the man died. The decision of the tribunal was that the death did not arise from and was not aggravated by war service, but the certificate from the local doctor was that he had died from malaria. Is there a single soul who has ever contracted malaria in this country? They contract it in foreign
countries. This soldier contracted malaria abroad, was treated in hospital and was certified to have died from malaria, and then the tribunal turned the case down and said he did not die as the result of war service. That is only one case. Hon. Members can cite several other cases. I put it to the Minister of Pensions that he has power under the Royal Warrant to review hard cases of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman is the sole authority under the Royal Warrant

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite clearly out of order. The ordinary administration of the Ministry of Pensions is not the subject of discussion. The question is whether there should be certain additional tribunals or not.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: The cases that I and other hon. Members get prove conclusively that these tribunals are nothing but a scandal. There is no getting out of that. Hon. Members may laugh, but the widows and children of these ex-service men are starved and they must go to the local authorities to get some relief, and you are throwing a national responsibility upon bankrupt local authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: It is not
true.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: It is absolutely true. I could cite 20 cases but I do not want to take up time. Out of 1,300 appeals before the tribunal 1,100 were turned down. Do you think there are 1,100 dishonest men who did service for the country for four or five years who would appeal for a pension if they thought they were not entitled to it? This is the case of only one tribunal. You have it in 20 tribunals all over the country. These cases are coming forward every day. I think the Minister of Pensions is really in sympathy with these people. I read a speech of his last week in which he said that justice should be done to them. A great injustice is done to them to-day through these tribunals, and the sooner they are abolished the better.

Sir H. HARRIS: I feel bound to support the Vote, because I was a member of the Select Committee which recommended that these tribunals should be set up, and we made that recommendation because we were very strongly urged to do so by the representatives of the ex-service men. I also feel bound to sup-
port it because I was one of those who pressed very strongly that the tribunals should be increased, because there were a very large number of arrears of appeals and it was a scandal that they should not be promptly dealt with. I think hon. Members opposite are labouring under considerable delusions. I had, as Chairman of a War Pensions Committee, to examine a very large number of these cases, and when the hon. Member says a man must be dishonest because he makes an appeal, I say quite the contrary. I have advised a good many men, whose cases were probably on the border line, to have a try, and the fact that this large number of cases has been turned down is due to the fact that a good many men have thought it would be worth while to have a try and they have gone before a perfectly independent and impartial tribunal.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: You did not say that before you asked these men to lay their lives down.

Sir H. HARRIS: I devoted five years of my life to getting the best treatment I could for these men. It is not likely that I should turn against them now, and that is not a fair thing to say. These tribunals have done their work fairly. I do not say they have never made mistakes, but does not the highest tribunal in the land make mistakes? On the whole, justice has been done. I feel bound to speak up for the tribunals, and I shall certainly support the Vote, because it is absolutely necessary that these tribunals should be set up.

Sir F. HALL: I also was a member of the Select Committee that sat on this pensions question, and it was particularly at the request of the ex-service men that these appeal tribunals were set up. I take the greatest exception to the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Griffiths), and it is a disgraceful shame that it should go out that any Members of this House are desirous of being a party to throwing a responsibility which justly remains on the Government on to municipalities, bankrupt or otherwise.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Who is keeping the widows and orphans?

Sir F. HALL: I have protested against that, and I cannot protest in too strong language. I have pressed my right hon.
Friend and his predecessor to increase the number of tribunals for London particularly, because we are in this position. We had an enormous number of cases waiting, and these men had a very just grievance that their cases were not being heard, and they were waiting for their appeals to take place. I brought that to the notice of my right hon. Friend over and over again, with the result that we have three additional appeal tribunals for London. It is quite within the bounds of possibility—it does not signify how careful a tribunal may be there are bound to be mistakes sometimes. The hon. Member himself perhaps has sometimes made mistakes. But I think the greatest possible care is taken by these tribunals, and I do not want there to be any feeling outside that hon. Members, and Members of the Government, are desirous of taking away from ex-service men any pension rights which may be applicable to them. If I thought the Government were going to do that I should vote for the Amendment, but I am convinced that though there may be mistakes, nevertheless the Pensions Minister is desirous of doing what he can for the ex-service men. I have had to bring very many cases before the Pensions Minister.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now exceeding the limits of the discussion.

Sir F. HALL: I am not desirous of doing that, but there are cases which will have to be brought before the appeal tribunal, and I hope, instead of reducing the number, we shall increase them to such an extent that it will do away with the waste of time in these men getting their appeals heard. I shall certainly vote against the Amendment.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I am quite sure that the experience cited by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Cairns), and the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths) is the experience of a great many of us, and without suggesting, on the one side, attempts at fraud, or, on the other side, any lack of sympathy, we cannot get away from the fact that throughout the country there is a very general consensus of dissatisfaction with the working of these appeal tribunals. It is only right that when we
are asked to vote this additional sum of £5,000 we should have an opportunity of giving expression to the feeling which is undoubtedly widespread, especially when the Minister of Pensions says that he has nothing to do with this matter. If the Solicitor-General could do anything to mitigate that feeling he would be doing good service to the appeal tribunals, and also to those who have to go before them. I do not want to go into instances, but I have many in my mind, and other hon. Members have had the same experience of the most extreme hardships that have apparently been inflicted upon those who have served. I hope that it may be possible to provide some means whereby, on new evidence being brought forward, there might be some review from the final Appeal Board of cases such as are known to all of us.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that that would require legislation; that there is no power to review cases dealt with by the appeal tribunal.

Mr. THOMSON: I simply wished to use that as an illustration why we should object to pay this extra money, because the service was not altogether satisfactory. I will leave that, after having made my protest. I am sure that the most extreme financial purist would not object to this extra money, because the congestion that had arisen was very considerable and gave rise to very great hardships. I hope the Solicitor-General, in cutting down these boards, will see that they are not cut down to the extent that congestion will arise again and further hardships ensue.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: The hon. Member who has just spoken and other hon. Members have expressed the opinion that there is very widespread dissatisfaction with the working of these tribunals. That is probably true, but I do not think it at all follows that the tribunals are working badly. We must all recognise that we are dealing here with a very technical matter, and it does not follow at all in regard to people who are working upon scientific lines, medical men, that their decision is wrong because it means dissatisfaction. I am not impressed by what I have heard as to the number of appeals that are unsuccessful. It only proves what one hon. Member has
said, that very large numbers of men appealed without having any good grounds. Hon. Members have given cases within their experience, and I would like to give a case within my experience. There are certain delusions in regard to this matter, and I was subject to the same delusion. I have had cases sent to me, which, to my lay mind, appeared to be very outrageous. I remember one case very well in which it seemed to me that the decision that die illness from which the man was suffering was not due to military service, was an outrageous denial of justice, and, if I recollect rightly, I sent the case, with a very strong protest, to the Minister of Pensions.
So indignant was I, and so much was this case on my mind, that I told the whole case to a distinguished medical man, a friend of mine, without mentioning any names, as an example of the way in which I thought the Appeal Tribunals were not doing justice. My friend listened to my story, and when I had finished, he said, with a smile: "Well, if you have told the facts correctly, all I can say is that the particular illness you have described could not, by any possibility, have been the result of military service." That was an example of the ignorance which I, as a layman, and which, I am certain, most laymen have upon these matters. Although I do not deny, no one could deny, that from time to time a number of decisions are given the wrong way, and I agree it would be better if there could be some means of reviewing them, I do not think that upon the evidence that has been given to-day there is any true indictment made against the working of the tribunals. On the whole, although I have had cases which seemed to me unjust, I am inclined to think that the tribunals work well and justly in the interests of the men whose cases they are called upon to hear.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: There are two grounds on which one ought to oppose this additional Vote, and one is that these additional tribunals would not be necessary if there were not such a large number of cases which the Ministry of Pensions oppose when they ought not to oppose them. I do not blame the appeal tribunal. The tribunal must hear the cases that come to them, and they must judge those cases on the evidence, but I do blame the Ministry of Pensions. I
think they take a very hard line in arguing that a man's illness is not attributable to or even aggravated by war service, when it is perfectly certain that the man was sound before the War, that he worked regularly before, the War, that he had been a wreck since the War and that, whatever the technical attributability may be, he never would have been a wreck if it had not been for the War.
Large numbers of these cases come before me, but the Ministry of Pensions say they are not attributable to war service and produce evidence and, I suppose, show some scientific cause that induces the tribunal to give judgment against the man. It certainly is not common justice. It certainly leaves men, whose lives have been ruined because of the War, without a pension. It leaves their families destitute, and is causing bad feeling up and down the country. You will not get the ordinary public to believe that these men have been properly treated, and you will not get the boards of guardians to believe that. I have had complaints from boards of guardians that they are obliged to maintain ex-soldiers or the widows, wives, or children of ex-soldiers, who come into their hands as a result of the War. These men are wrecks, due to what happened in the War, but the Ministry of Pensions argue that they are not responsible, and they induce the appeal tribunal to take that view. If the Ministry of Pensions did not take that hard view, there would not be necessity for the large number of tribunals that have been set up, and for which we have to vote additional money now.
There is another argument which I feel strongly, and that is that these tribunals ought to have some machinery for rehearing cases, and we ought not to be asked to vote additional money without some assurance that they will, in proper cases, give a re-hearing. I might illustrate that point by a case that came before me recently. A man was asked to send in his documents, and the authorities at the Ministry of Pensions said that they would prepare his case to lay before the tribunal. The case was to be heard at 10.30 in the morning, but when the time came his documents had not been sent back to him, and he had to attend the tribunal without the documents, which were delivered at his house two hours too late. They arrived at 12.30 instead of 10.30. When I wrote to the Appeal
Tribunal, I was told that their, decision was final and they could not re-open it. I did not ask for an appeal, because I knew that was out of the question, but I did ask for a re-hearing of the case. I have not the legal knowledge to say whether it is in their power to give a re-hearing as distinct from an appeal, but we ought not to be asked to vote additional money for these tribunals without some assurance that they will in future give a re-hearing in cases where new facts have come to light, or where old facts have not been properly prepared by those who undertook to provide them. For these reasons we ought to object strongly to grant this extra money.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I hope the Government will very strongly resist any attempt to cut down the money expended on these tribunals. I am not one' of those generally found supporting the Government on questions of Supplementary Estimates. But as far as I can see from the position at present and from the little experience I have had from time to time, I think that, particularly in the more widely scattered country districts, the need is rather for more tribunals and more chances for the men to get the cases gone into close to their homes rather than for reducing the number of tribunals or abolishing them. I would like to see these tribunals reinforced very strongly as time goes on, so that you would get upon them people who were in close contact with the men during the War, always remembering that if there was any question of doubt the benefit should be given to the man rather than to the taxpayer.

Mr. J. GUEST: Whatever the result of the Division, I hope that this discussion will have the effect of directing the attention of the Minister of Pensions to the work of these tribunals throughout the country. All Members of the House are anxious for the welfare of the ex-service men. I wish to draw attention to the constitution of the tribunals, so far as ex-service men are concerned. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is desirable that the ex-service men's organisation should be recognised in the appointment of the ex-service men's representative on the tribunal. At present it seems to me that the appeal to the tribunal is an appeal
which is forced by one Government Department and is heard by officials appointed by another Government Department. In that sense I do not think the tribunal commands the confidence of the ex-service man in the same way that it would if the ex-service man who sits on the tribunal were appointed from a panel nominated by the various organisations. I think that that would create confidence.
Many of the ex-service men who have to appear before these tribunals are in a weak or nervous state. No provision is made for any representation on their behalf. In my own district the men often have to go 20 miles to attend the tribunal. If it were possible, and I believe it should be possible, for the local doctor, who frequently knows the case from its inception, to attend along with the man and put his case, I believe that very often the decision would be different from what it is at present. I know that you will tell me that the doctor may go, but what I am appealing for is some financial provision to enable him to go, and that some reasonable fee should be paid, because the ex-service man has not the means to pay him. I believe that if you appoint two medical men on these tribunals, along with the ex-service man, and if the man is represented not only by himself, as at present, when very often he is in such a weak state as not to be able to defend himself, but if he had a medical man with him to put his case the tribunal would enjoy larger confidence than it does at the present time.
I want to say a word as to statements made to me regarding what I should term the brusque methods of the tribunals. Ex-service men complain that after they have travelled a long distance to the tribunal the proceedings are both cursory and very brusque. So far as my own district is concerned, I can say truthfully that on questions of entitlement, where the Case has been forced to the appeal tribunal by the decision of an authority sitting in London, the results are perfectly appalling. Men have been turned down practically wholesale, and as far as our own locality is concerned men have lost all confidence in the tribunals; the knowledge that their case has to go there being looked upon as a decision that their case
is at an end. It is regrettable that that opinion should prevail, and we ought to do everything we can to remove it.
With reference to what has been said as to the rates being called upon to supplement pensions, the board of guardians in my own area have 156 disabled soldiers, or soldiers who suffer from disability, or their dependents, upon their funds, and the cost to the guardians is something like £50 a week. It is no use relieving the national Exchequer in order to place the burden upon the local rates, and that is the effect of a great many of the decisions. I think, as this House has voted the money for these appeal tribunals, it ought to have a larger control over the work. The Committee ought to have available to it detailed records of the decisions arrived at. I have on occasions put down questions asking for a record of decisions on cases such as neurasthenia and tuberculosis, and such return has been refused, the statement being made that no tabulated record was kept. I would ask that a tabulated record should be kept, and I believe that if information was available, not as a general statement, but in the way of details, the House would be astounded at the results as shown therein.

Sir J. BUTCHER: There are two points to which I wish to call attention. One arises out of the speech of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. A. Williams). He suggested that in certain cases the Minister of Pensions induced the appeal tribunal to decide against a soldier. I hope I am wrong.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I did not mean "induced" in any improper sense. What I meant to say was that he produced evidence, no doubt of a scientific character, which induced the Court to come to that decision.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I am glad we have had that disclaimer. As I caught his words it appears to me to be a very serious charge against the Minister. Now my hon. Friend has disclaimed it, and I am very glad, because it would have been most dangerous if a statement like that went out of the House and was read by ex-service men. Another point has been raised as to the granting, in proper cases, of a re-hearing by the appeal tribunal. At present its decisions are final, but I think it would be reasonable
that where the soldier has not been able to place evidence before the appeal tribunal, and where that evidence is material to his case, there should be a re-hearing. Reference has been made to a case in which, owing to the default of some official, a soldier did not get necessary evidence placed before the appeal tribunal. It was not the fault of the man himself and in such cases, if evidence is not forthcoming owing to the fault of someone else, especially an official, there should be an opportunity of hearing the case again. I speak in the presence of the Solicitor-General, who I am sure agrees that that would be a legal and proper course. I do not understand the procedure of the tribunals, but probably they are under the Lord Chancellor, and I suggest that the Lord Chancellor's attention should be called to cases of that sort, and that he might instruct the tribunals to grant re-hearings in such cases.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I do not intend to detain the Committee very long, although they have been good enough to treat me in this matter much as the public outside sometimes treat me—as a general solicitor rather than a Solicitor-General. I do not propose at present to answer all those questions which, no doubt, can be dealt with by the proper authorities and at the proper time, but a few questions have been put which I do not wish to leave without answer, lest I should seem discourteous. First, the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) asked me whether or not bonus was paid to the judges. If he will look at the item concerning Chairmen, he will see that £800 is the inclusive sum paid to them, and the war bonus which appears in the heading of the Vote is not relevant to the pensions appeal tribunal. Next I was asked as to the class of the chairmen. In the case of the pensions appeal tribunal, the chairman is a solicitor or barrister of seven years standing. In the case of the tribunals which sit in the matter of the final awards, this legal representative or chairman is displaced by a second medical representative who takes the chair. In either case they are responsible persons. Thirdly, I was asked whether or not there are any expenses paid. Hon. Members will see that the Vote includes and deals with the question of appellants' expenses and the railway
warrants necessary to attend before the tribunal. There are two other questions with which I must deal. It has been suggested that in some way the Ministry of Pensions tried, either themselves or behind these tribunals, to misuse the opportunity of these appeals. I was sorry to hear that phrase. I think it was quite unfortunate. What does happen is that the Ministry of Pensions facilitates the appeal in every way, if it is desirable there should be an appeal, and it gives every item of information which is relevant to the case. Further, may I remind the Committee that the appeal is an appeal which can be taken only by the ex-service man; it is not a case in which there is a right of appeal for both sides, but only for the ex-service man to nave his case decided by a wholly independent tribunal.
The last matter is the question of the re-hearing. That is a matter that we cannot deal with to-day, as I think it would be necessary to consider the matter very carefully, because it would probably be necessary to alter the Statute, but after the expressions of opinion that have been given to-day, no doubt that can be taken into account in the proper quarter. Finally, I think it would be very unfortunate indeed if the view was accepted by the Committee that was presented by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths), who wants to sweep away all these tribunals. There may be a number of appeals in which larger hopes are entertained than are realised, but it must not be forgotten that it was because of the demand for

the tribunals on behalf of the ex-service men that they were set up, and let us not forget that this right of appeal for the ex-service men is enshrined in an Act of Parliament.

Mr. J. GUEST: May I ask the learned Solicitor-General whether he is quite sure of his fact as to the sole right of appeal being vested in the ex-service man? Is it not a fact that where men have been certified as under disability due to war service first of all locally, and then have had their disability assessed by the local pensions board, another authority sitting in London known as the Entitlement Committee forces them to the Appeal Court?

Sir E. POLLOCK: If the hon. Member will speak to me afterwards, I will try and make my meaning clear to him, and perhaps he will be good enough to explain to me the point he has in mind, as it is not quite clear to me to what he is referring.

Mr. J. GUEST: I will be obliged to do that, but it would be desirable to have the point cleared up now if we could. I assert that many of these appeals are taken to the Appeal Court, altogether against the will of the men, by the Entitlement Committee's decision.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am afraid I do not agree with that. I think the position is as I have stated.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 59; Noes. 160.

Division No. 21.]
AYES.
[6.50 p.m.


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Randall, Athelstan


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robertson, John


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hallas, Eldred
Royce, William Stapleton


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hancock, John George
Sitch, Charles H.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hayday, Arthur
Sutton, John Edward


Cairns, John
Henderson, fit. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Swan, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Thomson, T. (Middlesborough, West)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Irving, Dan
Thome, W. (West Him, Plaistow)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, lnce)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wignall, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, Thomas
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenyon, Barnet
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lunn, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Finney, Samuel
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Gillis, William
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D.(Midlothian)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Glanville, Harold James
Mills, John Edmund



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Myers, Thomas
Mr. Lawson and Mr. W. Smith.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Atkey, A. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Poison, Sir Thomas A.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gretton, Colonel John
Purchase, H. G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Rae, H. Norman


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Barrand, A. R,
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Remnant, Sir James


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Renwick, Sir Georgo


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hills, Major John Waller
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Brassey, H. L. C
Hinds, John
Rodger, A. K.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hopkins, John W. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Major D. C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marytebone)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hudson, R. M.
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Sharman-Crawford, -Robert G.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hurd, Percy A.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Butcher, Sir John George
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Simm, M. T.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Johnstone, Joseph
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Casey, T. W.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Cautley, Henry Strother
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sugden, W. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Lloyd, George Butler
Sutherland, Sir William


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Taylor, J.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford Henley)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Loseby, Captain C. E,
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Cope, Major William
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Vickers, Douglas


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Waddington, R.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Wallace, J.


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Dean, Commander P. T.
Maddocks, Henry
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Manville, Edward
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Ednam, Viscount
Marthews, David
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claue


Evans, Ernest
Morrison, Hugh
Windsor, Viscount


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wise, Frederick


Forrest, Walter
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Wolmer, viscount


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Neal, Arthur
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Gilbert, James Daniel
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Parker, James
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
McCurdy.


Green, Albert (Derby)
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)



Second and Third Resolutions agreed to.

Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

REPORT [22nd February].

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

"1. That a sum, not exceeding £215,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the payment of Compensation for Criminal Injuries and Medical and Nursing Expenses of Crown Employés who have been maliciously injured."

CLASS I.

"2. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £14,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for payments under the Tramways and public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc., the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896, the Marine Works (Ireland) Act, 1902, and for other purposes connected with Irish Railways."

CLASS III.

"3. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Expenses of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including a Grant in relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates."

REPORT [23rd February].

Resolutions reported.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

CLASS III.

"1. That a Supplementary Sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature, of the Regisrty of Deeds, and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Ireland, and of the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland, and of the High Court of Appeal for. Ireland, and of Officers lately of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland now attached to the Lord Lieutenant as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."

"2. That a sum, not exceeding £19,837, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland, as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."

CLASS VII.

"3. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, Ireland, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., sundry Grants in Aid; and the Cost of certain Services arising out of the War."

CLASS II.

"4. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade,"

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

"5. That a. sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of
March, 1922, for Grants in respect of Compensation for suffering and damage by Enemy Action."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Sir F. BANBURY: The rapid reading of these Votes makes them somewhat difficult to follow. I understand the House was going to adjourn at 7, and it is within a few minutes of that time now. Some of these Votes need discussion, and I would suggest that if we are going to adjourn that we should adjourn now.

Colonel LESLIE WILSON (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): It is true that it was proposed that the House should adjourn at 7 to-night. An understanding was arrived at on both sides of the House that we should do so, but that we should take the Report stage of the first six of these Votes. That will only take us to Class VII., Vote 3. I would ask for the remaining three of these Votes, which have not yet passed the Report stage. All have been fully discussed before, and they do not mean any new money from the State. Therefore, I hope the House will be good enough to give us these three remaining Votes.

Fourth and Fifth Resolutions to be considered To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Seven o'clock.